W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

*7 THIS IS MY STORY

Conversion From Hinduism!

The account to follow, appearing in NEW LIFE, Melbourne, 15/3/1990, has apologetic value. This it has as a verificatory experience, simply illustrating a practical and personal consequence of the God who not only created, but has spoken, and seeking, saves sinners.

Nalini Kumar is a former Hindu whom the Lord Jesus Christ saved by His grace. She kindly consented to this interview by the Rev Greg Fox, reprinted from "The Protestant Review," official journal of the Presbyterian Reformed Church of Australia.

Q. Where were you born, Nalini?

A. I was born in Malaysia.

Q. What was the religion of your family?

A. My family were practising Hindus.

Q. What gods were worshipped in Hinduism?

A. My family worshipped the god Siva, Murugan, Vinayagar, who is known in English as the Elephant god, Saraswathy, Mariamman and various other gods.

Q. Are you still practising the Hindu faith?

A. I'm glad to give the answer as a definite "no!" Around 1975 I stopped practising as a Hindu. I was a silent believer for a number of years, say until the end of 1981.

Q. You were a "silent believer." How did you become a more vocal and definite believer ?

A. I think I'll start with a little bit about my family. I was born into a Hindu family and brought up as such, but I should say that the seed of Christianity was embedded in my heart at the early age of six years, when my parents let me stay with their family friends, who were strong Catholics. I remember taking part in their daily family worship and going to church. Then I followed my parents in worshipping Hindu gods.

My turning point was going to India in 1974. In 1975 I joined the Christian Medical College and Hospital in Vellore, South India, for my nursing training. I was away from family and I enjoyed going to morning chapel worship. It was not compulsory, but I still enjoyed going, learning more about Christ and singing Christian songs. I also enjoyed attending evangelical meetings. I received joy and peace within my heart, worshipping Christ.

My best friend was a Christian and later I met my husband who encouraged me in the Christian faith.

But my true commitment to Christ came in Singapore, where I attended the Bible Presbyterian Church and accepted Christ as my personal Saviour and enjoyed doing His work. I trust in my Saviour so much that I can say boldly:

"Thank You, Lord, for taking my eldest son to heaven because I realise You had a purpose in doing so." (Nalini and her husband David lost their first child Adam two years ago when he was struck by a runaway truck.)

Q. What is your opinion of the Hindu faith now?

A. I just don't know what to say. I don't know how people can be so blind to the truth that's staring them in their face, that is that Christ is Lord. Even when you explain it to some of the Hindus, they're not able to digest the fact that there's only one Living God, and some of them, who are very well-educated even, they are not able to accept the facts of the Bible. So it just makes me wonder...

Q. What would be your advice to any Hindu person?

A. I was a Hindu. I worshipped Hindu gods and goddesses and I knew the background, as my parents taught me. It's not that they didn't teach me the background of the Hindus and about Hinduism generally. So I can't say that because I was naive about Hinduism, that's why I opted for Christianity.

But now I have the joy and peace that no other religion in this world can give. I know how the Hindus, even though they worship their own gods and goddesses, they feel so empty at times in their hearts and they have to sacrifice so many things to come into the god's favour.

But I would like every Hindu to experience the free joy and peace that's within my heart through receiving Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour.

I would also like to share with Hindu people about the sacrifices and the torture that they have to undergo to please the gods and goddesses, like hurting themselves and walking on fire and sacrificing animals and so many other practices. But as the Bible says, you are given free salvation by accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour and you do not have to sacrifice anything on your part, except give your heart to Him...

If at all you trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, you can experience the same joy and peace that He has promised.

*8 See also pp. 145-159 supra.

*9 Idolatrous .

Idolatry of course involves offering worship to something which is not God, as if it were. You get no marks for being mistaken. Error is involved in all sin; and treating what is not God as if it were, by means of worship, has absolute scriptural prohibition relative to fellowship, when the job is done by those calling themselves brethren - 1 Corinthians 5:9-11.

The Roman proclivity, passion (see Ch. 10, Section 2B infra) and program in this regard, in terms of seeming to kill Him who is statedly alive for evermore (for sacrifice involves death, and can only be commemorated if it does not), and to handle Him who is received and retained in heaven (Acts 3:19-21), so that there "is no more sacrifice" (Hebrews 10:17), worshipping the thing handled: this cleaves it wholly away from Christendom. Not merely is it a case of being wrong; not merely blasphemous; not merely contradictory of Scripture: it is a matter of being THEREFORE Biblically excluded, even from fellowship with Christians. Apologetically, this is important: Rome's special record is irrelevant to this Faith of Christ. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 5:11.) It has nothing to do with the testimony of God, except to show the lusts of man, and his self-exaltation to his own confusion, while on the contrary exhibiting the precision with which Biblical prophecy operates, as earlier noted.

*9a Romans 5:1 shows justification something done; while 5:9-10 shows of the justified that they 'shall be saved', as something even more sure, and indeed if the former was by His death, this by His life. The justified are covered by One, just as men were made sinners by one (5:19): respectively Christ and Adam. The justified ? They 'reign in life' (5:17) through that One, Jesus Christ (5:17). Just as many were made sinners by the one, so these stand by the One, whose works (5:18-19) are sufficient, just as our works IN THIS AREA are NOT EVEN RELEVANT (3:20-22, 24,26,27-28). These, the justified, are indeed 'made righteous' by the One. In fact, grace 'reigns through righteousness to eternal life' (5:21) . . . and that righteousness (5:17,15), it is a free gift, exclusive (3:22, 27-28) of all our works. (Cf. *2, pp. 531-532 supra.)

Moreover not only is it a gift, and a free gift, (Romans 5:15) it is a free gift 'BY GRACE', just as the whole work of salvation is 'by grace through faith' and 'not of yourselves' (Ephesians 2:8 - see p. 1043 supra). The categorical implications into sin from Adam, which were universal to our race, constituting all sinners, are outdone from (Romans 5:16,20) in consequences in this gift, this time not of sin but of righteousness. Like the other, it is humanly irrevocable; but the grace abounds the more, being divinely irrevocable (Romans 5:19-21,9-11), this costly gift being perfect and its donation like itself, free and effectual. Hence Romans 8:31-39. (See Titus 3:4-7, Hebrews 6:19, 9:12, 10:10,14.)

*10 The Woe of False Worship . . . The Canons of Trent, from the 13th Session of the Council of Trent, Chapter 5, October 11, 1551, state:

All the faithful of Christ may...render in veneration the worship of latria which is due to the true God, to this most holy sacrament.

That puts it precisely, in all its horror, an open shame. We are told that the Mass is to be 'adored' and 'borne reverently...through the streets...' So is this portable, worshipped god given the full honour of worship, this, made with hands, put in the oven and then treated as God. Isaiah and Jeremiah frequently thunder on this sort of folly, with barbed anti-benedictions!

How perfectly Isaiah could have related it to the pagan and - in a gravely ironic way, as the poignant prophet here presents it - comic blasphemies of his own day. For his inspired denunciation, see Isaiah 43:11-18, and such words as these:

He hews down cedars...he plants a fir...Then shall it be for a man to burn; and he will take of it, and warm himself; yea he kindles it, bakes it; yea, he makes a god, worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down to it. He burns part of it in the fire...yea he warms himself and says, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire: and the residue of it he makes a god, even his graven image: he falls down to it, and worships it, and prays to it, and says, Deliver me; for you are my god.

It is emphatically laid down that worship in the stricter sense of the word, or what is technically called 'latria' is and can be offered to none, under any circumstances, but to God alone; and the SUPREME AND PERFECT FORM of such WORSHIP, is the EUCHARISTIC SACRIFICE. ( . . . 'Mass'. Emphasis added.)

Rich with her ententes, her political agreements, undertakings and understandings, as that infamous one with Adolf Hitler, by which World War II was enabled (Daniel File, pp. 911-917), Romanism has poured out blasphemies like these wafer-gods, these pontificating, destiny-dealing priest gods (like the papal 'God Almighty on earth', we saw), this mother-God ('Redemptrix', the 'only hope of sinners'), in each case having THEM do what ? This: seem to perform functions unique to, and the prerogative scripturally of...GOD.

The "only hope of sinners" Mariolatry was the product of Pope Gregory XV1 - cf. Liguori's The Glories of Mary, pp. 160-170. This "only hope" like "redemptrix", is versus the Bible: Acts 4:12, Titus 2:13-15, John 14:6,9, 10:9,25-28, Hebrews 2:12-18, 9:12-10:39, Isaiah 41:8-14, 44:6, 43:5-14, 53:10-12, 54:5, Hosea 13:4,14.

Whoever can 'swallow' Mass, forsaking the Word, may find palate for the rest of it!

*11 Peter - EXTENSION ON PETER AND THE PRINCE: pp. 1060-1065 infra.

*12 EXTENSION: THE CHRIST AND THE POPE. This is Extension 2, pp. 1065-1069 infra.

*13 Quotations in order listed as from: Pope Puis XII, Nov.1,1950, St Peter's Rome, addressing the crowd on the dogma of the Assumption...and from the Encyclical of Pope Leo XII, Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens.

*14 John Paul II in The Code of Canon Law (prepared by The Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland et al.), 1983, states:"It is hoped that this English version of the Code will be a fitting resource for an attentive and fruitful study of the law of the Church...We order that henceforth it is to have the force of law for the whole Latin Church, and we commit its observance to the care and vigilance of all who are responsible."

Not merely is the massive Code of Canon Law adhered to, rather than departed from: it is BOUND, explicitly being given indeed the FORCE OF LAW. Revisionism this is not!

GOD SPOKE: THEREFORE LET THAT WORD SPEAK - "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually works also in you who believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13.) Indeed, "Add not to His words, lest He rebule you and you be found a liar" - Proverbs 30:6. God knows what His words are and who His Son is; and will require of any who abuse His name by seeking to direct, correct or replace His spoken or His living word (Matthew 7:21-29, 4:4,10, Revelation 22:18-20, Galations 1:6-12). It is necessary to ABIDE in His words; and this is not a work of speech, but of being still (Psalm 46:10).

*15 European Unity ...

The child is heavy, the birth is slow: the child when born has far to go.
Alas it has no protection on - direction ...

The 1992 date has yielded in turn to 1993, the year of the taming of the Danes; while the throes of the wild child that is Europe, quondam sophisticate, barren site, fruitful site, source of peace, place of access, hope of success, blast-off of discord, handiplast of peace ... these appear as labour indeed, with vigorous pains pulsing as the child begins to move.

Labours of child-birth? or of death! live birth or dead ? The hope springs hard, and the power is not dead; but the needs of this or that phase - heightened European sovereignty for administration of Europe-made concepts and agreements, power of foreign policy, social agreements: these move like a fever. The action of the British Lord Rees-Mogg to challenge the agreement of the British Parliamentary Act to ratify the Maastricht Treaty (The Australian, July 26, 1993, p. 11) highlights the altitude of the agreement.

Above the smog, is it not to allow a European making of foreign policy; and what then of the British sovereign ? he asks. As for the social agreement, this involves a centralised method of agreed determinations from which the British had opted out. The opting out in turn illustrates the cutting edge of this invasion of individual nations. At that, the British are in turmoil with the Conservatives in anguish at what is being lost: the lust for unity devouring others of the same group, moved as by unhallowed hypnosis. Truly 1993 with its sombre reflections on the crises of the attempted monetary union, is a year of realisation; but the junta moves on like one appointed, to its destined end.

*16
EXTENSION ON:
THE SINFUL SACRIFICE
PARADING BEFORE -
THE SACRIFICE FOR SIN

The unique sacrifice of Christ, as shown, was so in more ways than one. Thus it was unique in the Person who did it (Hebrews 1:1-3), the occasion on which it occurred (Hebrews 1:3, 9:12, 15, 24-28), the singleness of the offering matching its singularity, its singularity matching its personality, for it was God-as-man who made it, the personality in turn matching His whole and total initiative and delight in coming Himself to render it (John 10:18, Psalm 40:6-8), as also His sinlessness in offering it (Hebrews 4:15). All this was the 'necessary', the 'better sacrifice' required. 'It was necessary . . . For . . .' Indeed we must be thorough.

What was to be better than the (photo-) copy sacrifice of earlier times, better than symbols or 'shadows', to use the words of the writer of Hebrews ? What was this 'better sacrifice' which it was 'necessary' that the Christ should make (Hebrews 8:6, 9:23) ? What was indeed the 'substance' to replace the symbolic shadows (Hebrews 10) ? Who was the One who said (10:7), 'Lo, I come', this being written of Him ? Who 'sat down' - when He had by Himself purged our sins', when He had offered this one, necessary sacrifice ? It was Jesus Christ, uniquely offered (Hebrews 9:12, 14), necessarily, bloodily and with anguish offered, having thus "obtained eternal redemption". It is He whom none can compare with sinful priests, or animal beasts for that matter, offeree or offeror. HE offered ONCE HIMSELF, by NECESSARY APPOINTMENT, exact specifications, utter singularity of mode.

This NECESSARY BETTER SACRIFICE which is effectual for the redemption of transgressions (Hebrews 9:15) . . .

1. It is something not often done.

2. It is done once.

3. This singularity is contrasted with multiplicity (9:25).

4. It is done by Him, being sinless, and this not only with suffering, but with singular suffering, through the eternal Spirit (9:14).

5. If it WERE multiple, THIS sacrifice, He would often suffer (9:25), but it - like Himself - is contradistinct from priestly multiplicity in kind.

6. The relevant fact concerning this sacrifice is affirmed scripturally to be contrary ('NOT' that He should often suffer; NOT like the high priest entering often with the blood of another, either). Any contrary sacrifice is not this one. To contradict the contradicted is to be . . . interdicted !

7. Any bloodless sacrifice gives no remission (9:22, 10:10-14, 19,22). THIS one, once made, with blood and suffering, gives remission to faith, and requires this scenario: "no more offering for sin" (10:18).

8. Assuredly as men die only once, then await judgment, so Christ 'was offered' but once to bear the sins (Hebrews 9:28), an effect gained by death (9:15), not parade, manipulation or pronouncement of men: a death which meant sinultaneous suffering (9:26); something which indeed is from that time on, past, excluded, accomplished. Moreover, this is the case not only by affirmation, but by negation of the opposite. Explictly, indeed, without blood being shed, "there is no remission" (9:22). THIS is the Biblically defined, necessary, unique, effectual sacrifice.

9. We who believe are sanctified by this ONE OFFERING MADE ONCE, by ONE PERSON, our coverage for all time thereby being consummated (Hebrews 10:10, 14).

The Mass idolatry to the contrary, proposes a new, multitudinous 'visible sacrifice' (Trent, Session 22, Ch. 1), such that 'the same Christ' is 'contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross': this anaemic Mass sacrifice, itself performed by multitudes of sinners, just as multitudes urged Pilate to make it before, is nevertheless 'truly propitiatory' (Ch. 2). The suffering of death however is . . . excluded (Trent, Session 13, Ch. 3). Indeed, though 'unbloody', the 'bread and wine' are 'destined to become the Body and Blood of Christ', and as to the church, its 'victim is one and the same', the same Christ now 'offering through the ministry of the priest who formerly offered himself on the cross'.

As to the crime perpetrated against Christ: by the Mass, termed 'the sacrifice of his Body and Blood', 'the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated'. It is like disobedience set in a formula, repetitively invoked. The contradiction of Biblical criteria is thus magnificently complete. Nothing further removed from the Scripture is conceivable. (See Vatican Council II - The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, with imprimatur of Walter P. Kellenberg, Bishop of ROCKVILLE Centre, August 1975: in order - pp. 174; 109-110 - cf. Trent, Session 22, Ch. 2; 163, 162. Trent's deadly deviation is also invoked by Vatican II, p. 154, re 'the sacrificial character of the Mass' which it 'solemnly defined', indeed presented 'most aptly' (pp. 109-110), in lethal unison.)

To reinforce and give practical point to the appalling abomination, this Mass sacrifice is called 'the source and summit of the whole Christian life' and 'the centre of the Church's life' (op.cit., Section 20, Ch. 2, 79; and Section 15, p. 209). It puts their 'God' under the control of the church in a way as ludicrous as that which Isaiah by the Spirit of God directly lampooned - see *10, p.1087 infra. In Romanist Liguori's much employed The Dignity and Duties of the Priest, that exponent almost seems to be sharing Isaiah's denunciation, unwittingly, and with no apparent intention to assault the evil:

God ... places Himself in their hands, even though they should be His enemies. And after having come He remains, entirely at their disposal and they move Him as they please from one place to another.

*17 EXTENSION: The Might of God and the Mouth of the Moslem Movement (*17*18)

One criterion for exclusion of any religion claiming to come from the Creator, in terms of the argumentation of Ch. 1 supra, is this:
the use of violence at the faith level, in the pursuit of its aims.

The factitious, disparate and contradictory alliance: man's heart under his hand; his will beneath his arm; his life driven by the impact of arms to control, constrain or compel its 'allegiance', has been shown as in principle fatal to any religion purporting to proceed from the Maker of man. (Cf. pp. 30-36, 50-54, 91, 978, *3, pp. 1082-1083 supra; *3,*4 pp. 1186A-C infra; and Index - 'Force' and 'Muslim'.) In this case of the Muslim faith, the contradiction goes far beyond the simple violation of this category, that excludes by reason. It is however of more than morbid interest to see something in summary form, of the extent of this violation (see ref.'s above).

(a) Not only have multiplied instances been found where violence to faith is directed against the persons of other religions, per se, at this level; but

(b) the noted categories of its use are such that they could embrace whole segments of the globe in this delusive dynamic, this personality-abortive insurgency of force into 'faith'; and

(c) the issue sought by the religion in such cases, is violation or extirpation of the victims, the divergent religionists: as contrary to Allah, to his religion, to his satisfaction quite expressly in their religious bent, in their heart direction, tenor of faith. Force may be used to make them submit in such cases, and force again if they decline from this duress. Thus systematically, demeaned and degraded, they may debauch 'faith' to become the puppets of power.

(d) Though these may have aroused Muhammad in their 'obstinacy' or 'insusceptibility' or resistance to his religion and to its rule, yet the religion's outrage at non-conformity, indeed at a failure of SUBMISSION to Allah's faith, is sated in blood; and conformity to it in such repeated cases is desired, designed, and thus ostensibly obtained.

Hence:

(e)

i) Jihads of modern times, formally or in function - like that of 1948 when Moslem Syria, Jordan and Egypt dropped differences to combine against Israel, Egyptian planes dropping leaflets saying, "In the name of Allah, the Almighty God, who always speaks the truth, it was not our intention to begin a war. It is your resistance which has caused us to attack you . . ." (Elon's The Israelis, p. 202 - it. added), while calling on Jews to surrender!;

ii) Moslem words such as those of Nasser in 1967, saying that the very existence of Israel was "in itself an act of aggression" (Elon, op.cit, p. 8), before he was most un-almightily beaten; and

iii) multiplied religious violence, such as that in Pakistan in 1994 (New Life, August 11, 1994), where religious laws have engendered untold suffering, allowing ready accusations of 'blasphemy' against the Moslem faith to bring death penalties; and where Christian legislators (a small minority) are under death threat, merely illustrative of violence for faith purposes per se in many Moslem lands, and involving countless outrages in the name of the law:

THESE are not in tenor contrary to the words on multiplied occasions of Muhammad, at least in kind.

This remains the case, however much he preferred less outrageous means of co-existence when - and provided that - the "submission"-securing power of his religion ('Islam' says the word), its rule, domain, visible superiority or physical security per se did not seem threatened or compromised. Now the returned Jews may indeed seem a threat or have seemed it, though so small; but as to their loss of Israel in this scenario ? God has spoken otherwise - just as He has done otherwise (cf. pp. 810 ff., 824-835, 874-877 supra).

Indeed:

(f) the paradise case (see p. 987 supra) where battles won physically for Allah, conquests in view of battle level against 'infidels' were so to be rewarded: this illustrates the fact that unabashedly Muhammad established his rule itself by force, from caravan raids to insurgency.

If then the Moslem faith does not secure recognition for exclusion by reason, in that it is one willing to use and deploy force at the faith level: then words have no meaning, history no content, threats no thrust and the scimitar is a dream. Reality however is otherwise. The religion qualifies (in this category) in excelsis on multipled counts; and hence is logically not only excluded in these terms as shown, but it is so a fortiori. When ANY violation on this count excludes it, this actuality is logically fatal to its consideration, and that superabundantly! Thus is preserved the simplicity of the demonstration, in this as in all its other dimensions.

As to the God of the Bible then ? (see pp. 65-67 supra; 1174B-D, 1163A-1164, Appendix B, 1176-1185, 1186A-C infra). While He does use power to proclaim His word and to allow access to its remedy, and to fulfil His word, to bring in moral judgment and to contain history within the ambit of His predestinative counsel: His manifold, multiplied appeals without force to the heart of man, are as clear in the Old Testament as in the New (cf. Joshua 24:14-25, Ezekiel 33:11, 18:20-25, Hosea 12:10-13, 11:4-8, II Chronicles 36:15-17, Isaiah 48:18, Matthew 23:37-39, Luke 19:42). As a matter of monumental fact: the dimensional movement from Mecca to Calvary is infinite.

Calvary is as superabundantly and overwhelmingly BEYOND the requirements of the logical category of violence to faith, as Mecca is multiply deficient to meet it. Indeed, the abundance even exceeds the deficiency. That, in turn, is the sort of order of magnitude both in itself, and in contrast, that one would expect from the self-identifying God of the Bible.

*18 (Extension cont. - cf. pp. 633-643 supra.)

God does not use violence on the heart of man, to mock the 'image' He made. Yet power He does deploy to make a conformist out of history in this: it MUST obey His word.

Amos Elon in his work, The Israelis (pp. 31-33, 227) notes the implacable hostility to Zionism evinced by Arab nations in negotiations and attitude, repeatedly; indeed to their great cost. Had they accepted the Balfour Declaration offer of a Jewish minority; or the 1946 offer of a maximum of 10,000 Jews from Displaced Persons camps in Europe; or that of 1947 (with all good wishes, from the U.N.) of a highly restrictive partition for minority Jews, ex-Jerusalem as capital: they would have fared far more handsomely against the often despised, often mistreated and greatly oppressed Jews.

Stirred by anti-Zionist fires, contrary to the God of the Bible, against the Jewish heritage given by God - one greatly mishandled, it is true (indeed lost for a season, by greatly underscored divine punishments, prophetically outlined in the Bible, underlined in red . . . in history) - a heritage nevertheless that God inveterately re-apportioned the Jews for the end¹ : the Arabs would not relent.

Nor would God relent, who in justice and mercy had composed all things in advance (cf. Isaiah 46:9-10, 43:13). The contest was uneven; for God is sure.

Elon writes: "After the complete rout . . . in 1967, it was thought . . . that tens of thousands of Egyptian soldiers had voted for peace with their feet. But Arab leaders soon announced that another was was 'inevitable'; in the long run they expected to arrive at victory . . ."

Israel in decades of tumultuous Arab and Moslem expression about her and her . . role, has been viewed with a deep, religious abhorrence, as a pest, plague, to be competitively exterminated. There has been an anti-Zionist crusade, a pan-Moslem rejection syndrome (cf. The Teheran Conference noted on pp. 814-815 supra), even reaching this height, that all opposition to Israel should be "islamicized". On p. 226 (op.cit.), Elon notes: "Among intellectuals, the frustrations bred by the apparent irretrievability of Arab glories of the distant past, are compounded by the failure of pan-Arabism, and hurt even more as a result of Israel's . . . consolidation", while "the establishment of Israel in 1948 is commonly referred to by Arabs as a calamity".

The fact is that a perfectly simple, straightforward Biblical program, first of discipline and then of restoration for the Jews, BOTH phases backed by DIVINE power as stated in the Bible, has come to pass in each feature with monumental power, amazing fidelity to detail and extraordinary events. The VERIFICATION OF THE BIBLE, not of any race per se, is what is most notable; and it is absolute against the pretensions of all idols, gods and races (even Jewish 'productions' when they became 'inventive' - Deuteronomy 32:17-43).

Elon's words are in historical parallel here, to these Biblical facts: "Only in 1968 after three lost wars, did the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 begin to look reasonable to the Arabs." Thus despite immense international pressure on the Jews and an exceedingly limiting international plan, they have been established far beyond those puny confines, which would indeed have simply internationalised Jerusalem, though with some possible representation, leaving the Jews historically decapitated. It was not to be.

Jerusalem is scripturally a node of definition in History, to become, once again, Jewish. Neither Arab, nor Moslem, nor glory present or past, nor many nations can work it otherwise. (Cf. Isaiah 43:13.)

God has spoken. History leaps to obey. There is one God. There is one Bible. There is one history. One of the few perfections in history is that match.

It is like a magnificent tartan: the word of God on the flesh of history. It is very becoming, and the result is exceedingly handsome.

*19 God "will stain the pride of all glory" in the days of judgment; and "no flesh shall glory in His presence" (Isaiah 2:11,17; 23:9; 1 Corinthians 1:29).

It is Christ who is made TO us "righteousness" and "redemption" (1 Corinthians 1:30), Jeremiah 23:6, 33:16, Philippians 2:9-10), and Christ IN you who is the "hope and glory" (Colossians 1:27).

Accordingly, JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE which is (*9a) for ever, meets all these specifications (Isaiah 51:6, 61:10), being a product of the life of Christ Himself that will never fall apart, no neither in judgment nor in trial (Romans 5:9-11, 8:29-39). Indeed we see and have seen its excellent features elsewhere in this work (pp. 525-532, 1042-1086, 475-498 supra), and in the light of the judgments to come, we shall summarise these irreducible fortifications that cover the soul of the believer. Thus Justification of Life is for ever; and

as to node, "apart from works" (Romans 3:28, 4:4, 11:6, Ephesians 2:8-10);

as to code, exclusive of works; (Galatians 2:16-21, 3:15-29, Titus 3:3-7);

as to mode, irrelevant to works; (Galatians 3:1-3, 4:4-7,17-31, 5:1-6);

as to load, borne by Christ (1 Peter 2:22-24);

as to road, sits on, is based on Calvary, the Cross of Christ (Galatians 6:14,16)

who DID the ONLY works acceptable for it, and did them to perfection, receiving ALL glory. From THIS focus, glory may not be diverted, no not for ever (Revelation 22:3, 5:13).

As to the works of those so justified: both the dynamic reality and the formal status of justification in, by and through Christ has outcomes. Works are one of these. Such byproducts are contingent on, resultant from Christ's justification of the believer . . . as light moves from the sun, or as an object moves in response to force sufficient. However, neither is the sun its light, nor is the force its object. Works of man "FULFIL" faith, but they do not comprise it; justify faith but do not displace it; attest it as does dawn the sun. No part of the sun, however, is created by the dawn, or relies upon it, in part or in whole.
 

*20 Inflammatory Orations - EXTENSION ON STATISM

The 'orations' might rejoice at the burning of 'heretics'. Perhaps Archbishop Cranmer would be a prime case, though he himself also testified of Christ in the very face of the violent power, before burning first in the flames of Rome, the very hand which had signed for a short time, a recantation of faith. Repenting of this, he was able to re-state his faith before that remorseless religious body summoned him to the last stage of his martyrdom.

As to these 'heretic' orations made by Rome on the office of the flames, or on the papal splendour: these words could boast at least the loftiness which one might find in kings, crazed with power or desperate for the security of their States. (The Spanish Armada had its impact! though God dispersed it ignominiously.) In fact, Roman Catholicism had developed into an internationally conceived Statism in terms of Unam Sanctam (q.v.): practically illustrated in the Inquisition (q.v.), itself formally instituted by papal power, and inflamed for centuries. This in turn was buttressed by the 'timeless' papal access to infallibility for its murderous decrees (though this was rather long in coming into time...); so implicating further what was in this breach and torture, a spiritual Mafia. In its robbery, even from those it orphaned, and its slaughter directed against persons' estates, it defiled, degraded and oppressed Europe.

Further distinction should be made. These seizures of persons and goods by Rome, a papally sustained feature and focus of intrinsic passion, not mere 'convenience', were not wrought by a politically intrusive king, a royal marauder violating the church, but by a 'spiritual' pope. This 'king' was to represent not the State, but the church (indeed, he most vociferously claims to represent Jesus Christ), in a blasphemy appalling, and a horror inconceivable. It is like 'representing' someone, while you cut off his hand (cf. Matthew 25:41-44).

Some Protestant churches of the Reformation, like the Anglican, could suffer from intrusive Statism, in this case tempered by the Settlement of 1689; but by no means all Reformation or Protestant churches were in the grip of Statism. The Waldensians (q.v.) had reason enough for hundreds of years before the Reformation to be defined in their decisive division from Rome, which they maintained onwards. The Presbyterians (q.v.) are an example of a church arising in the Reformation itself, one which suffered enormously and distinctively for having Christ as the Head of the Church in reality and truth, and indeed so practically that congregations could NOT have any other king, or commandant, direct their choice of polity or pastor; and as to the doctrine, it was to be that of the church body in Christ, by Scripture. To this, they added exhortation to magistrates, as to anyone else, to be Christian.

A defined negation (to which the term 'Protestant' essentially relates) towards Rome is as necessary for any embracive theology, Biblically defined, as is a General Medical Practitioner's attitude towards influenza - which threatens a take-over at times, on a world scale (Titus 1:9, Acts 20:27-29 - "fierce wolves" in principle need watching, not ignoring - I Timothy 4:1-6).

Vulpine orations can be devouring in several senses; and there is more than body at stake, though that stake has been fiery enough.

Refer: pp. 445-446, 750B-D supra, 913-915, 1035, 1058-1068, 1191-1194 infra.

*21The claimed ex cathedra 'infallibility' of the papacy implies hundreds of years of access to this sort of assured certainty ('the voice of eternity' - pp. 1058-1059)... WHILE executing countless victims WITH such authority. For Rome to repudiate such papal declaration of the past, such formal proclamation or 'Bull', or such Council relating to the pope, would be to annul the validity of their claim. The infallible voice of eternity does not need to change its mind... On the other hand, to accept such authoritative statements, or Council, such as Trent, this is to sanctify murders innumerable, ready for the judgment seat of God, at its day. Rome in fact remains, ready according to prophecy (cf. p. 949 supra), for the judgment predicted for it. (Cf. pp. 951, 953, 1034-1035, 1058-1060 supra.) In this, as in all things, the word of God is verified. In THAT, God is glorified.

Footnotes:

1. As also historically seen, and likewise prophetically demonstrated from God's word in Ch.'s 8 and 9, and Appendix A of this work.

Return to main text