WE are receiving so many letters and emails that it is impractical to publish them all. Feel free to follow up on any theme.
L etters have again been a lively and rewarding aspect of our work. We are grateful to all readers who take the time to write of their support and/or criticism. Gradually we sense that the message is getting across that part of our policy is to establish a forum for discussion about matters of faith. "In ESSENTIALS unity; In NON-ESSENTIALS liberty; and in ALL THINGS Charity." We believe that it is possible to disagree without becoming disagreeable. Please remember that strong expressions are not synonymous with bad feelings.

Contents:

• Regarding AoG -NZ slowness to respond to alledged abuse claim. -Dec. 2002
• Man resurrected after three days - video available More...
• Martyn Joseph, Rod Parsley's, 'Breakthrough Ministries' More...
• Gathering the Faithful Remnant More...
• Feminism, Spin, satire, bad leaders More...
• Letters from the CETF issue January 2002
• "australian christian churches + heresy"
• Letters from the CETF issue January 2002
• Previous Letters...
• Even More...

Thank You for your articles on AoG

Encouragement!

• With the exception of those miracles associated with Elijah and Elisha at the time of Israel’s greatest apostasy, the miracles of the Bible are clustered around the time of the two great redemptive acts in human history: the Exodus under Moses’ leadership and supremely, the ministry of God’s Son toward which the Exodus pointed. John suggestively and purposefully refers to Jesus’ miracles as “signs”, i.e. the miracles primarily authenticate the ministry of Jesus and those of the 12 Apostles (Matthew 10:1, 8) and secondarily point to life in the world to come, “the new heavens and new earth, our home of righteousness” as Peter expresses it.
• In truth, the miracles of the Apostles as recorded in Acts are no where near as prominent as those of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels. In contrast, the preaching and defence of the gospel are very much to the fore in Acts.
• When we come to the Epistles, with the exception of 1 Corinthians, there is something approaching a resounding silence on speaking in tongues, healings, etc.
• Additionally, I note that 1 Corinthians was an early epistle and written to people with a great many problems, including their practice of speaking in tongues.
• I would not be so dismissive of the theological and exegetical arguments underlining the cessationist argument, including those for 1 Corinthians 13:8.
• The initial Day of Pentecost speaking in tongues was in languages known to those listening. Clearly by 1 Corinthians the practice had deteriorated to the point where interpreters were called for, and indeed, I view what Paul has to say in this chapter as negative for the modern practice of tongue speaking. All that I have read and experienced of modern day tongue speaking is a far cry from Acts 2:4-11.
• As far as modern day practice is concerned amongst Pentecostals and others with faith healers (Benny Hinn, et al), so called Toronto blessings, etc, at worst it all appears to be deception, contrivance and skulduggery (and to be avoided at all costs) and at best, a very pale imitation of what we find in the Gospels and Acts.
• The so called Toronto Blessing I attended one evening six years or so ago was disgraceful. Christ never got a mention except as some kind of mantra, but I can tell you agree. Unfortunately it is all going to reappear again at some stage in some new manifestation. For me as a Pastor, the important issues are:
• To preach Christ which is my great delight (1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5)
• To nourish the people of God who meet as the Pioneers’ Presbyterian Church, Cheltenham
• To build the congregation up as a loving, believing and accepting community in their faith, and
• seek by all means possible to win others to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. and yes, I love to baptise the children of believing parents on the basis of our covenant theology!

J & H R
Surrey, UK

I value the writings you produce. Your teachings are not what the church wants to hear today, but they are true to the Word of God!! I appreciate the way you expose the heretics and the heresy in the evangelical and pentecostal churches of today. You are a lone voice but one that needs to be heard more and more. God bless you

CB, NZ

I last heard you (PLP) speak at Hephzibah in Marlow, England a couple of years ago and since then greatly look forward to receiving CETF, which keeps me abreast of what is happening in the church throughout the world. I was concerned to read in the June 2001 edition of the difficult financial position within which CETF is published and distributed. Could I propose for you to prayerfully consider, making an annual charge to all who want CETF, to cover production and distribution costs. If someone sends me a bill I pay it, but when I have to remember to make a donation sadly I often forget. Making an annual charge would have obvious financial benefits, but it would also allow you to keep your distribution list up to date (which in itself will save money) it would also allow recipients to make a donation to your work and also you could give people the opportunity to sponsor a free copy for someone else.May GOD bless you and your ministry and I look forward to the next edition of CETF.
J Mc, UK

The idea of charging for our magazine (VANGUARD) and journal (CETF) was considered but we decided against it at that time for two reasons:
Firstly because we felt that our mandate relates to the promise of Psalm 110:3 which refers to "volunteers" in the day of the Lord's power. If the workers are volunteers (no-one is paid by CWM in our publications' work) then the donors would be too. Secondly we did not want to exclude anyone, which would occur if a levy or charge were raised. To answer the other questions, at present we do not hold charitable status other than in NZ. We would like to organise ourselves on this footing in UK, but we need a sympathetic expert to help us (any volunteers would be most appreciated!). As to how it all started, let's just say that we are simply following up on a vision we believe is from the Lord. This vision involves more than simply producing four publications a year, and we are excited about how things are developing...so watch this space!

(Ed)

Assemblies of Baal! - AoB

Good Meetings in Birmingham!
After hearing Dr Bhayro speaking on 14th September, I would value being on the mailing list of the Vanguard magazine. Dr Bhayro opened up the scriptures and gave us a fresh and deeper understanding of God's Word. We would like to thank him for his excellent teaching. Knowing he was tired after his long journey, I eagerly await his next visit and pray that he will be refreshed in the Lord continually.

These meetings are organised by Arthur and Liz Layland (phone 01527 577973), and are held on alternate Thursdays in the Rednal area of Birmingham. Speakers include regular Vanguard contributors such as Philip Foster, Tony Pearce and Jacob Prasch. God willing, I shall be speaking there again on Saturday 9th
February and Thursday 4th July, 2002. (SB)

Not One of Ours!

This relates to a prophecy given by a certain Stephan Attia, who said that there would be an attack on Israel by Egypt and other Arab states in July 2001. This is obviously quite wrong! The article you sent has absolutely nothing to do with us nor do the "Vanguard Magazine" in which it appeared or their web site www.vanguardmag.com
For the record, our web site is www.christian-witness.org where you can find our archives, which have never contained Attia's prophecy. Please beware -- just because something contains the name Vanguard or Christian Witness Ministries it does not mean that it has anything to do with us. We have many enemies who would love to discredit us in this way! (SB)

Resource Material
A Blessing

Responses to Tenney Article

Dear Friends
We have recently been loaned a copy of your magazine Vanguard. We were thrilled to realise that there are still men of God who are not afraid to go against the popular beliefs and contend for the Truth as revealed in the Scriptures. About the same time as we received your magazine another person gave us a copy of "God Chasers" by Tommy Tenney. This was the first time we had heard of this man, so were completely unaware of his beliefs. We were disturbed by Tenney's remarks about the Scripture, so it was encouraging to read Mike Taylor's article as confirmation of our own conclusions. May the Lord richly bless you and continue to use you for His Glory.

Y & E R Nottingham, UK

Thank you for your encouragement. Many people have been taken in by Tenney, but we continue to pray that our warnings will be heeded. It is a shame that while the AoG in the USA has distanced itself from Tenney, the UK AoG executive display the usual inertia as they fail to show any discernment regarding this man. In the next issue of VANGUARD Neil Richardson will write an analysis of the latest craze sweeping the Christian book shops -- the Prayer of Jabez. We hope that readers heed our warnings on this also. (SB)

Cessationism & Tongues Issue

Dear Philip Powell:Thank you for your e-mail letter of July 3, 2001, and for your kind words for the ministry in Brisbane. I read through the article you sent me, "Cessationism versus Biblicism." I can easily agree with most of it though there will be some key points of disagreement. As to my own position, except for the gifts of apostleship and prophecy, I am not a cessationist. Nor, can I accept the various different ways people have redefined those gifts to make certain types of prophecy and apostle ships cease and other types not cease.I think one of the weakest points you make is how you handle Acts 19. It is not true the word "disciple" is used in the Gospels only "to Christ's followers in the four Gospel narratives in the book of Acts." The term is also used of the followers of John the Baptist. Furthermore, the context of Acts 19 clearly shows that the fact they only knew the baptism of John shows they were disciples of John the Baptist who had not yet heard Jesus was the Messiah. The whole context requires them to first hear about Jesus from the Apostle Paul. Your approach to this passage is only weakening your position as a whole. Your whole presentation is quite strong, but this is a very weak spot you might want to re-evaluate. You can easily accept the view these are the disciples of John the Baptist who have not heard about Jesus as yet and still not compromise your position elsewhere. Doing so could strengthen it rather than weaken it.Another observation I make is that every quotation you make from the work by Jack Deere seems to be of a positive nature. Yet, I know from your own presentation as well as the fact that you are in substantial agreement with Jacob Prasch that you would not actually go along with Deer's brand of extreme charismania. You seem to always favourably quote his critique of cessationism, and you fail to warn your reader this does not mean you go along with Jack Deere's brand of non-cessationism. You might want to consider adding a paragraph saying something to that effect.Also, when you make a reference to "a dispensational interpretation" (page 25), I might point out one can hold to that position and not be a cessationist. As you will see from what I am sending you, with the article and "The Arab States in Prophecy", I do believe the tongues in the book of Acts are to introduce the three ethnic groups into the body with Peter's use of his keys to the Kingdom. That, itself, does not lead me to be a cessationist. Dispensationalism does not naturally lead to cessationism. What dispensationalism does is naturally lead to strong Biblical emphasis, as over against proving anything by experience, and that is the key reason why Dispensationalists have mostly (but not entirely) stayed away from Pentecostalism and Charismatic expressions: too often evidence was used on the basis of experience rather than on the basis of Scriptures alone.Along with the above manuscript, I will be sending you three others: "The Ministries of the Holy Spirit," "The Gifts of the Holy Spirit," and "The Confession of Peter." You will note not all of us use history to argue our points. Whatever I try to prove, I try to prove on the basis of Scriptures alone. Even if you do not fully agree with what I have written, I hope you will find it beneficial in understanding what our position is and why we hold it. Yours for the salvation of Israel,

Hi, my name is Douglas and I love studying. I enjoyed your articles on "Tongues and related articles"
http://www.christian-witness.org/archives/cetf2001/tongues01.html

I must confess to having been ignorant of Jack Deere's links and false teaching when I wrote the article. In hindsight I should have included a disclaimer, as Dr Fruchtenbaum suggests. HOWEVER this raises an important point that a man may be correct in what he presents from history without being reliable in other areas. The question we must ask is, "Was Jack Deere right in what he affirmed about C H Spurgeon and the other things that he claimed in the article that I wrote." (PP)

Many thanks for your letter and kind words of support. I am pleased that you feel able to offer a criticism of one of my points -- it is good when we can have discussions of this nature without falling out. Please allow me to reply to your criticism, albeit briefly. I think it is wrong to attack those who try to understand the scriptures by placing them in their correct context, be it historical, cultural or textual. Just because others may have abused this approach in ignorance, we should not be put off. For example, we cannot fully understand the passage in which Abram slaughters the beasts at God's command (Gen. 15) without first having some understanding of ancient Near Eastern custom. We cannot completely understand the message of the prophets, unless we know what was going on in the period in which they lived. The Bible is a book from another culture, and to attempt to interpret it according to our Western mindset will lead to gross misinterpretations.
Regarding our specific disagreement, we see no reference in scripture where the apostle Paul commanded those, who had converted to Christianity having many wives, to divorce all except one of them. Such a command would have made the husband renege on his duty to his wives. Paul instead instructs that only those with one wife may be an elder and, in keeping with much of Paul's teaching, I suggest that this is more for practical than theological reasons. Furthermore, I think your model of equating the Holy Trinity with husband-wife-children is flawed and I would discourage you from going down that route. If anything is "God's model", I would suggest celibacy and a life completely and unambiguously given to the service of Christ. This is Paul's counsel, but, again for practical reasons, he acknowledges that marriage is more suitable for some and instructs concerning it -- e.g. 1 Cor 7:1-9.
Finally, I must confess that your reference to the "sin of feminism" does concern me a bit. To write off an agenda so completely is not prudent. Surely you wouldn't disagree with the principle that a woman should receive equal pay for equal work in her employment? Or that opportunities for education should be equal for each gender? The excesses of a particular "worldly" movement should not blind us to the inherent justice of its cause. (SB)

Dear Dr Bhayro,
I thoroughly enjoyed your biblical ecclesiology on elders in your March issue. I agree with you 100%. It is based on the Word of God. The duties and standards of elders in the O.T. and N.T. are according to God's standards and Divine Command. So many churches today are ignoring Divine Command in so many ways. We appear to be following man rather than God, in man's interpretation of God's Word. Please tell me where you stand with regard to God's ten commandments (the MORAL law) especially the Sabbath, which was introduced at creation and mentioned throughout the Old and New Testaments and is to be kept in the New Earth (Isa. 66.22 & 23). Scripture warns us that man will "think" to change times and laws (of God). (Dan. 7.25) As you mentioned - "instead of obeying scripture, congregations have remained under the control of one man, a system inherited from Roman Catholicism." We certainly will reap sore judgement if we ignore Divine Command. Yours sincerely,

Dear Philip,
I recently read your article "Why the fuss about Tongues?" and found it to be helpful. I'm aware that you are well acquainted with the many views on this subject, but I have jotted down a few thoughts and send them to you for your prayerful consideration.1. The gifts mentioned in the N.T. can be divided into two categories: (a) signs to the world {Mark 16, 1 Cor 14:22} & (b) edification to the church {Eph 4, 1 Cor 14:3, etc}. The gifts that were for signs were to act on the senses and they drew the attention of the natural man. The gifts that were for the edification for the church acted in relation to the conscience & they were to be understood and received by the spiritual man. Spirit. It is a dangerous thing to allow that some things were just cultural. This is exactly the excuse used by those in churches who practise the sin of feminism. If we say, "O, that bit is just cultural", then have we not opened the door to rebellion against God on all sorts of issues, which fleshly folks don't like? Of course we have. It cannot be that the inspired Word of God here is intending anything else but that God's order be established. It is dangerous to suggest that this is "just Paul" as I have had said to me by churchy people who have no intention of obeying God. If we are not in obedience to Him how are we His disciples? How can two walk together except they be agreed? Amos 3:3.

JH Bruton, UK

Many thanks for your letter and words of encouragement. According to Ex. 20, God gave the Ten Commandments to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. This is the start of the revelation of the Mosaic Law, which was given explicitly to the Israelites as part of their covenant with God. Regarding this Mosaic Law, those who entered into this covenant were under a curse: "Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them" (Deut. 27:26), and this point was reiterated by Paul (Gal. 3:10). To divorce the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic Law is quite wrong, and to place us under an obligation to them ignores their context in Exodus. I believe that you are incorrect to state that the Ten Commandments are the "moral law". In addition to strict commandments on behaviour, they also contain commandments relating to religion as well as one that governs ones emotions/desires ("Thou shalt not covet ..."). A better example of a moral law, which should be understood as relating to the whole of humanity, is found in the
covenant made with Noah and his descendants following the flood (Gen. 9:4-7). Here we find the prohibition of both murder and the eating of blood, which also explains why the Jewish believers insisted that gentile converts refrain from eating blood in Acts 15:29.
The Sabbath was not part of the universal Noahic Covenant, but was part of the peculiar Mosaic Covenant, which is peculiar in that it is the sole possession of the Israelites. This is the context for the scripture you mention regarding the keeping of the Sabbath in the world to come. Isaiah 66:22-23 does not just mention the Sabbath, but also the new moon festivals -- another part of the Israelite religion. If we are to use Isa. 66:23 to establish that Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath, then we should also be obligated to keep the new moon festivals!
The Daniel reference relates to the coming "man of sin" or "antichrist" (discussed in more detail elsewhere in this issue), who shall persecute the Jews for three and a half years. This verse mentions his blasphemy, his persecution of the Jews, his attempt to pervert their Law and the length of his terror. This has nothing to do with the Church.
Finally, you correctly allude to Roman Catholic influence in the customs of our churches. The practice of meeting on a Sunday is a relic imported into Christianity from the ancient pagan Sun-worshipping religions. These religions would meet to worship the Sun as it rose, particularly on the Sunday. As pagan Rome adopted the mask of Roman Catholicism, this practice was simply dressed in Christian garb.
(SB)

Appeared in Issue CETF 7.2 January 2002
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3