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




"The new head of the Anglican Church in Australia hit back yesterday at those who accused him of undermining the Christian faith by questioning the significance of Christ's resurrection."

That is what starts the newspaper report. One would almost gain the feeling that some horrible evil had crept into this church, and that its prelate had found himself attacked despite his faithfulness, if not, indeed because of it! Such is the tone and tenor of the article. He "accused his critics" - we  get the feeling of Daniel in the lions den, disturbed by disturbers, gloriously immovable in his faithful stand, stance and situation.

Far however is the case from this. Rather it might look as if one of the lions, grown literary, had given its own opinion on the thing, and roared it out to the press. "Belief," according to this report, in his opinion, "belief that salvation could come only through Christ was not valid in a modern, multicultural context." That is roughly like saying that belief that there is a brain under the cranial vault, is not valid, and is apt only where there is a European head.


Here we find the tenor of it: that validity is a social function. It has NOTHING to do with logic, truth or rationality. It is what goes, flows, what is current, contemporary, appeals to the popular mind, whatever that may be, is statistically viable and so forth. It sounds especially like a business proposition, like Mitsubishi stating that whether or not the car would continue to be manufactured depended ... and in the opinion of one Australian manager in the realm of this car, it might depend on whether or not it could be done at a profit.

It depends. That is applicable where a profit is sought, and markets relate to prices of raw materials and taste and need and effective demand for goods, and so on. As to 2+2 = 4, this does not depend on such things. As to the laws of logic, these do not depend on such things. A high price for a particular view, may, according to the cynics, and some corrupted regimes, make that seem a 'sound' assessment; but few would they be who would imagine that popular, public, official, political endorsement creates logic! It does not help space craft to fly, that a large section of popular opinion should have  thoughts on the best way to proceed in aeronautical affairs! Logic is not manipulable, but beliefs are... in the non meta-religion area.

How much, well that depends; for once you are out of meta-religion, into those cultural products, those belief patterns, those developed approaches which proceed from the mind of man, and are invoked for his ways, values, morals and judgments: then it does indeed depend. It will depend on the amount of honesty, honour and truth; it will depend on the degree to which such things are subservient to the desires of various pressure groups, and self-advantaging elements, quirkish desires (like that for an Aryan superiority on the part of Hitler) and so on. It does not amount to much; it may get the money and the power behind it; but it will not affect its truth in the slightest degree.

  • Meta-religion is that which is required*1by logic - not merely supported by it: ASP 15, End-note 1, ROP 4, pp. 64-76; REF 13, End-note 1 - cf. SMR 252Jff., 208 . As indicated in these references, it exists  in one example: Biblical Christianity. Other approaches do not pass logical muster. In Barbs, Arrows and Balms 7, the fiasco is seen also. In SMR Chs. 1-3,10, it is demonstrated in sequence. Now Paul shows that the divine nature and eternal power of God are obvious in Romans 1. On this site, we verify that statement! ALL other ideas fail - as Paul indicated, "casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself, against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ".


  • Christ is not a pleasant Sunday afternoon cultural stroll; He is the man of sorrows, of resurrection, chosen to provide pardon, to control history, to bring in judgment, being God manifest in the flesh (John 8:58, 14:6). What He paid is sufficient for all who come in faith to Him; what comes by any other means is literally impertinent (cf. Matthew 21:1-14).



THAT apostolic declaration about the nature of God and of the Gospel of Christ, however, for our present topic, is the point. It is SO CLAIMED by Paul; just as it is readily demonstrable to be the case. As to this ONE GOD (Ephesians 4:4), He has ONE GOSPEL (Galatians 1) so profoundly TAUGHT both in SUBSTANCE and in WORD to the apostle, as he expressly declares, that there is ONLY ONE RESULT, for its treatment. On this, see also Ch. 1 of Acme, Alpha and Omega- Jesus Christ, where a separate and brief teaching is given.

It was NOT taught; it was NOT a cultural, educational or human induction or transmission at all, says Paul. From God it came, in a way both verbally and cognitively superintended, exposed, enabled.

ONE GOD, ONE GOSPEL, ONE RESULT. That is the apostolic teaching with the clarity of an arc light.
This is the precise and exact opposite of what - if the Advertiser report be accurate - the archbishop is teaching.

But what is this result, this one result of the Bible here ? If you believe it, you are redeemed and live eternally  (Galatians 3:1-10,29). If you do not, and preach some other gospel, then you are accursed, in a monstrous situation, and that, even if you are an angel! Yes, even if you were PAUL, the same fate would be yours, if you turn from it to some other one. Obviously, the archbishop is neither an angel nor the apostle Paul, nor a master builder like Paul (I Cor. 3), so that the church became built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:19), Jesus Christ, as Paul proceeds to declare, the chief corner stone. Now the important thing to note here is this: the church HAS BEEN BUILT, says Paul, on this foundation. Thus there is from that very apostolic time, ONE GOSPEL, ONE FOUNDATION, ONE COMPLETED FOUNDATION, ONE GOD, ONE LORD, ONE FAITH (Ephesians 4). We are quite coming along.



But what did the Old Testament say ? Did it discreetly make it clear that the God called the Lord was really only a tribal god, or a religious pastime, or a suitable ceremonial being to call on, in order to prevent rickets of the soul, diseases of the spirit, and was only the subjectivistic psyching up machinery for the tribe which was brought out of Egypt ? Was that the conception ? If it was, we must notice this. If not, we must realise that the Archbishop's religious belief as expressed in this report, is

  • 1) a contradiction of the New Testament.

 2) a contradiction of the Old Testament.

3) a contradiction of specific type, which makes the proponent - Biblically - accursed, whatever office, height or power may be his, even to the point of being angelic!

 4) an accuser of the apostle Paul, making his direct statements in Galatians to be nonsense, delusions, and his assertions that THE GOD ALMIGHTY had so instructed him errors, or if preferred, God to be immersed in deviousness, error or worse. That this blasphemy should be so has been shown impossible in Barbs, Arrows and Balms  6, in SMR pp. 22-47, 92ff., 580ff., Repent or Perish Chs.2, 7, and in  Acme, Alpha and Omega - Jesus Christ Chapter 8. It is pure irrationality. Such a view as that has not of course been reported in this case, so hoping for the best (correction, for the better...), we shall address simply the assault on Paul. PAUL too must be able to defend himself against his critics, of whom, in this case, the Anglican prelate would be amongst the chief. So too must others who would fall to his active innovations.

But let us to the Old Testament to find what the divine claimant states.

In Isaiah 43:10-11, we find that there WERE no gods before GOD, and that there WILL BE no gods after Him. Of GOD, He is alone. There is NO OTHER GOD, as He states indeed, in Isaiah 44:6. Let us get the exact words: "Beside Me, there is no God!" Thus, either Isaiah is wrong to have thought that God spoke an inspired message to him, that is, expressed His mind to the prophet; or God who spoke to him is wrong, and now in our 21st century, we make our own!

It is not entirely clear why, having been created

(as in That Magnificent Rock Ch.1, A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-9, SMR Chs. 1-3 and so on, and as stated with the utmost categorical clarity in both Testaments - That Magnificent Rock, Appendix),

we should now dispense with our creator!

It is not clear that we have become what we never were. More proud perhaps; less realistic, more confused with gadgetries, more pumped with pride, but not more human. If anything could be LESS human, than the affairs of the twentieth century in vast numbers, teeming cases of slaughter and wickedness of every kind, it would be difficult, except perhaps in hell, even to imagine it! (Cf. SMR pp. 839-840).

Now we have already dwelt in terms of lying, with the whole subject of divine inadequacy, and its total logical impossibility, in the references in 4) above. What however if Isaiah were mistaken about the concept that GOD had spoken to him. Could it be that not God but Isaiah made... a mistake!

Perhaps Isaiah was mistaken in stating in Isaiah 52-54 all the things which history can only confirm, each and all,

  • a) concerning the fact of the Messiah coming in miraculous power (Chs. 28-29, 35, and so on),


  • b) concerning the fact of Jewish rejection which was also to come (Isaiah 49:7),


  • c) concerning the gospel as specified in Isaiah 52-55, in content,


  • d) concerning its being preached to the Gentiles (as objectively, has simply been the case, this predicted gospel from Isaiah),


  • e) concerning the acceptance of it by kings, and


  • f) concerning its being with relish and exuberance embraced Isaiah 24:16, 49:6-7),


  • g) concerning the restoration of the Jews to their land (cf. SMR Chs. 8- 9, Appendix A, Barbs, Arrows and Balms 13, The Biblical WorkmanCh.1, incl. End-note 3, Tender Times for Timely Truths Ch.1, Repent or Perish Ch.3);


  • h) concerning the restoration being so successful, and divinely ensured and entailed, that there came to be a kind of LAND need, from overcrowding (as in Ch.9 SMR);


  • i) concerning the amazing and notorious business in flowers,


  • j) concerning the afforestation which he predicted (both as in Ch. 9 SMR).


  • But what ?


  • k) Perhaps Cyrus, the predicted deliverer for the Jews, from the captivity of Babylon (as in Isaiah 44-45) did NOT come;


  • l) perhaps archeology has NOT shown that this actually happened - in the so-called Cyrus cylinder;


  • m) perhaps also, these words of Isaiah HAVE departed out of the mouths of the spiritual descendants of Israel (as predicted in Isaiah 59) and


  • n) perhaps the book of Isaiah is actually lost ?

Actually, NO! These things are not the case. If ever a book has confounded the critics, been triumphalist in its magnificence of daring, its unspeakable precision of fulfilment, its utter dedication to detail, AND to its absolute declarations concerning the ABSOLUTE God, and His ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and His ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVITY, and His ABSOLUTE SINGULARITY, both in time and beyond it: this is it*2. It is clear. It is unequivocal. It repeats the theme that there is ONE God, the creator of the universe and of man, and the One who will supervise the departure of the universe (as Christ indicated also would occur in Matthew 24:35 - cf. Isaiah 51:6).

It INSISTS that this is so, so often as to become almost, but not quite a refrain. This you find for yourself by simply reading Isaiah 43-45. In fact, in Isaiah 45, you find what leads to the destruction of the position of that other group, with its dismissive view of a not-so-objective deity in and as Christ: the Jehovah's Witness.  (In fact, Christ is Himself Jehovah's witness, being the same on earth - John 8:58 and the concept of someone else competing is ludicrous in terms of the relative performances of BOTH!). Here in Isaiah 43-5 then, what do you find ? This: The two terms for the deity in such a context, el and elohim, both are used by the inspiring author of the book (that is to say, God Almighty). There is no other el or elohim at all, He declares. There is NO GOD at all, other than He, in any form or manner, who is in the heavens, who creates, who is Lord. This proceeds into Isaiah 46.  (Cf. SMR Ch.7, pp. 532ff..)

There is in number of such beings, God apart, NOT ONE; there is a ZERO quantity available. This is what is affirmed continually, from this aspect and that, in terms of power, of creation, of destruction of what is apt for it, in irresistible power, in salvation.

Now such a margin of recurring emphasis as this, may seem to some to be childish. It is not. Far from it. It is not merely that many aspects are covered, many waverings and wanderings blocked; but there is the nature of the READERS, the recipient to consider, in any apt communication.

Thus it is far from  childish to tell the children NOT to play with fire, many times and in many circumstances and with various illustrations, if they are in the habit of burning down houses. Man IS in the habit of burning down the beauty of his world, his body, his mind and his spirit by endless seeming sallies into idolatry, making his own gods, simple or sophisticatedly, and then, inanely - THIS IS THE DIVINE CHARGE in Isaiah - falling down and worshipping the silly things! THAT is an incisive part of the message.

In Isaiah 48:3-11, we see the challenge: it is quite direct, practical and empirical. Let us read from this:

"I have declared the former things from the beginning:
They went forth from My mouth, and I caused them to hear it.

"Suddenly I did them, and they came to pass.
Because I knew that you were obstinate,
And your neck was an iron sinew,
And your brow bronze,
Even from the beginning I have declared it to you:
Before it came to pass, I proclaimed it to you,
Lest you should say,
'My idol has done them,
And my carved image and my molded image
Have commanded them.'

"You have heard,
See all this,
And will you not declare it ?
I have made you hear new things from this time
Even hidden things, and you did not know them.
They are created now and not from the beginning,
And before this day you have not heard them
Lest you should say,' Of course I knew them.'

"Surely you did not hear,
Surely you did not know;
Surely from long ago your ear ear was not opened,
For I knew that you would deal very treacherously,
And were called a transgressor from the womb...

"Behold I have refined you, but not as silver,
I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.
For My own sake, for My own sake, I will do it!
For how should My name be profaned,
And I will not give My glory to another."

There is the challenge: they were TOLD, and they did not quite like to be told, to be shown, to have the divine power demonstrated; they greatly preferred to attribute things to natural causes, or better still, to some froth or filth of their own, some conceptions and constructions of their own minds. Therefore God imparted new predictions and judgments suddenly, yes and new deliverances, and performed them with His customary precision, so that their delusive deviousness would be openly exposed as folly and deceit.

Again, in Isaiah 41:21-24, we find this most pointed challenge:

"Present your case," says the LORD.
"Bring forth your strong reasons," says the King of Jacob.
"Let them bring forth and show us what will happen:
Let them show the former things, what they were,
That we may consider them,
And know the latter end of them;
Or declare to us things to come.

"Show the things that are to come hereafter,
That we may know that you are gods:
Yes, do good or do evil,
That we may be dismayed and see it together.

"Indeed you are nothing,
And your work is nothing.
He who chooses you is an abomination."

God then gives the prediction regarding the deliverance to come in due course, from their long announced and very due punishment, to occur in Babylon, at the hands of a named future king, Cyrus of the Medes and Persians. These things are given in the succeeding chapters. This is the CHALLENGE based on fact. The facts are as noted, in part, and listed earlier in this chapter.

WHO then has done more to indicate divine inspiration in his words, to attest objective divine power of them, the prophet Isaiah or the Anglican primate ? Whose word is just in this matter ? NO ONE thing from the latter is even in the competitive field, objectively, logically, to establish even a claim to deity, or even one to an exact knowledge of the mind of divinity, in competition with the direct statements of that kind in the Bible! But the claim of Isaiah to DEITY BACK OF HIS WORDS is impeccable experimentally, historically, in wit, invention, foresight, grasp, comprehension of developments, knowledge of precision in the oncoming field of events. From the viewpoint of verification, it is no contest; and the same applies to one, as to all!

It is indeed, like the case of Christ versus ALL other religious figures*3: here He is  without any competition at all. Verification is in one direction only: it is a race of one. There is nothing else in the field. His credentials are readily scrutinised, multiply so, His claims are enormous, the task is accordingly simple, as we see in SMR Ch. 6, and pp. 931ff., Repent or Perish 2, 7 and so on. It is the same with the Gospel (cf. That Magnificent Rock Ch.3, Barbs, Arrows and Balms 17).

That is what you would expect, that is what you get. That is verification. It verifies too the formal demonstration that the Bible is the word of the Almighty, the sole written, authorised communication from Him to MANKIND, found in SMR Chs. 1-3,10, and verified further in the rest of this work, as in Ch.5, in particular, where is seen the power of the word of God to answer any philosophical problem at which secular 'faith' fails. There, this power which it has, is extensively illustrated.

How are all these things so ? It is because the Lord has made them so; He did not plan to leave any just ground for any doubt at all. It is just that the truth answers to truth; when you have it, it serves. When you lack it, you are full of conundrums, because there is nothing like the truth. The needs of the case are met by the provisions in the case; and not by casuistry. God has supplied in logic and evidence, in detail and in design, in word and deed.

But does God speak in this way in the books which Christ attributed to  Moses also - does He make such claims to Moses ? Certainly and assuredly. In Deuteronomy 32 we find that He declares, with just such a challenge and just such utter contempt for the pretence and pretensions of folly, which look elsewhere for the self-attesting GOD. It is found here very much  as in Isaiah ... Let us look at THIS:

"Now see that I, even I, am He,
And there is no God besides Me;
I kill and I make alive:
I wound and I heal;
Nor is there any who can deliver from My hand.
For I raise My hand to heaven,
And say, 'As I live forever,
If I whet My glittering sword,
And My hand takes hold on judgment,
I will render vengeance to My enemies,
And repay those who hate Me...' "

Why in Psalm 96, we see what the Lord thinks of the gods of the heathen, the Gentiles, those who make their own: "THE GODS OF THE PEOPLES ARE IDOLS". Now here one has deliberately OMITTED one word from the text; and not improperly, for it is the first word. "ALL THE GODS OF THE PEOPLES ARE IDOLS."



We have above already looked fairly intently in this sphere.

But what of Peter in the book of Acts ? The same fact, the same boldness, the same unequivocal statement, the same utter oblivion to ANY OTHER SALVATION. Yes, for he says: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" - Acts  4:12.

Yet we must ask: Of whom does he then speak ? "Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised form the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you builders" - from Acts 4:10-11.

As sure as Paul is Peter; and both attest the utter irreconcilability of comparative religions, with ONE GOD who has made ONE SALVATION in ONE PERSON who is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of that ONE GOD, and the ETERNAL LIFE (I John 1:1-4) always with the Father (John 17). In this Anglican primate, therefore,or in the report concerning his words:  we are finding essentially all the Bible re-written; for these assurances are throughout without fail, never varying, endlessly presented or implied.

Indeed, God is going to gather all things in ONE in this SAME JESUS CHRIST, who, you will note, is stipulated as the one relating to Nazareth and killed by the Jewish nation (Ephesians 1:10). GOD, says Paul, has made known to us

  • "the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fulness of the times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth - in Him. In Him we also have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory" -

from Ephesians 1:9-12.

You will observe the repeated, intensive focus on IN HIM! On whom ? This same Jesus Christ.

You get the complete parallel in Colossians 1:19ff., complete with a similar emphasis: you could say without real repetition, because it is true to the case: it is the emphatic emphasised! Here we find this, that not only the WHOLE FUTURE covered, but the WHOLE OF HEAVEN AND EARTH, as with Peter in Acts 4:11-12. Here it is more focussed on Christ very directly; but it has the same vast outcome in time and mode, for salvation: all-comprehending, unitary in Christ. Let us regard this statement closely.

  • "For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fulness should dwell,
  • and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross ... in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, blameless and above reproach in His sight"

(from Colossians 1:19-22).

We notice the

EMPHASIS, BY HIM, used twice in close succession; we observe the
SCOPE, ALL THINGS, we ponder the
METHOD of this comprehensive and all-encompassing Gospel -

All of it is all-inclusive; and the only exclusion of course follows - what is not of the faith! It is not at all a question of some faith or other: it is this faith, THE FAITH, this Jesus the Christ, this Gospel, this undimmable, unrescindable, paid for, infinitely precious redemption gospel, concerning the blood even of the One who before He came, was in the very form of God!

As to the exclusion of what is not of THIS FAITH IN THIS CHRIST ACCORDING TO THIS GOSPEL AND THIS ACTION OF GOD IN TIME. IT is not included, for the simple reason that the faith is all inclusive of the PERSON, the METHOD and the PAYMENT made by God for the satisfaction of divine justice (Romans 3:23ff.). There is nothing else to say, to do concerning atonement, but to apply it.

What then ?  the Primate, if he would like to have the way reported for him,  would need to change the divine predestination as well, the divine counsel, the divine eschatology as well as the divine salvation, the Biblical basics in both testaments, not to mention - or perhaps we might just mention - the character of the Biblical Christ. (In John 14:6, we read -



  • "For I Have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life" -

John 12:49). Further,

  • "If anyone hears My words  and does not  believe, I do not judge him, for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him - the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day" - John 12:47-48.

Yes, judgment too, this is to be re-written, to fulfil these novelties ... but wait!


Since, if this report of the Anglican primate be true, this is to be a new religion, with a new Messiah, a new salvation situation, a new predestination, a new prophetic past, a new plasticity, a new gospel and so on: would it not be better for the primate to found a new religion and not USE the name of the ONE who is centrepiece in the one which, for some reason one does not know, he chooses with such words as these, to call his own ? Or would the Anglican church do better to remove the word "Christian" ? or perhaps the Sydney section of it would do well to act as commanded, and EITHER to remove the primate - if this report be true, or ITSELF! as it not so long ago, according to report, was considering doing.

WHAT COMMAND! That in Romans 16:17, which covers the case of TEACHING CONTRARY TO THAT OF THE APOSTLE:

  • "Now I urge you brethren,
  • note those who cause divisions nd offences contrary to
  • the doctrine which you learned,
  • and avoid them." (Emphasis added.)

This is CERTAINLY contrary to it. The TOTAL FUTURE is the field of Paul's statements and declarations as shown above. The words of THIS SAME JESUS are indeed to judge at the final judgment as He states. And what of this in Titus 3:10:
"Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition."

It would not be possible to be more divisive than this, for in field after field at the basic level, there is here a division. It should not be a long division, but a short one - ON THE SECOND ADMONITION. That is the nature of the thing which would be needed;  or total rejection of the view attributed to the archbishop, by him.

The Anglican church has the choice which many other churches have had in the last 80 years or so. It must remove this teaching, or believers must remove themselves, or it ceases to be a Christian church, Biblically and apostolically defined. It could then, in that case, call itself the Anti-Biblical Christian Church, or better, the Primate's Church, or the Church of the Modern Philosophy or indeed ANY other term which does not plagiarise the term 'Jesus Christ'.

We had the same sort of situation in 1966 in New Zealand (see the account of this in Biblical Blessings Ch.11, which also includes a parallel sort of situation developing in Australia). It is time to act, or to acknowledge that the word of God doe snot rule in this body. That is all. (See Separation, in The Kingdom of Heaven, Ch.7, which addresses these areas systematically, in terms of Biblical teaching on this topic.)

Oh incidentally, this is precisely what Paul said WOULD happen when the last times came (as defined in the Bible, see SMR Ch.8), in II Timothy 3. Read it. God always has it all covered, for you see, it is part of His power to predict even the moves of those who assault His church with false teaching, and to characterise the movements of events.


Yes, this is so: that is the title of the book, in part.Yet is it not so, that when roses need pruning, it is wiser to do it! Otherwise the tender blooms may not be so robust on maturity, and the plant may be made too spindly. When a child is not corrected, it can become spoiled to the point that inane antisocial activities can come like Autumn leaves, the natural fall-out. What is this society thing which is getting in my (oh so important) way ? the child may come to ask when a little older. Germs unmet are not tender to anyone; and anyone tender may consider how to keep tender the children when the germs are of so contrary a disposition. An Army with tenderness for its very old and very young, may be manly and direct and deal with the invader. A cook may scour out the pans in the hope of preventing bacterial residues, and a farmer may harden his heart to the point of cutting off foot rot in unkempt sheep, where the worms may even appear.

This is DIFFERENT from what is normal, apt and appropriate. It is a different way of keeping sheep, roses, pans, cooking. The Bible treats the matter in precisely this way. When you read what Jeremiah 7 and 23, and Ezekiel 23 have to say, and what Christ has to say in Matthew 23, indeed in Luke 11:52 of the people whose ways were NOT HIS, but who nevertheless used HIS NAME, you realise that it is question of the plague. It is to be stopped, or the people will be stopped. It CANNOT and must not continue. WHEN FOR ALL THAT, IT DID, in the days of Jeremiah, despite so many pleadings for reform, so many opportunities to show it, the Lord made it clear in the end, that even the personal presence of great intercessors would achieve only one thing: they would deliver themselves. The rest were in fatal arrest.

"Then the LORD said to me," says Jeremiah: "Even if Moses and Samuel stood before Me, My mind would not be favourable toward this people. Cast them out of My sight, and let them go forth. And it shall be, if they say to you, 'Where should we then go ?' then you shall tell them. Thus says the LORD:
'Such as are for death, to death;
And such as are for the sword, to the sword;
And such as are for the famine, to the famine;
And such as are for the captivity, to the captivity' "  - Jeremiah 15:1-2.

  • The same resultant, after long and protracted mercy and exhortation, appears in dazzling style in Jeremiah 47:6:


  • "O you sword of the LORD,

How long until you are quiet ?
Put yourself up into your scabbard.
Rest and be still!

"How can it be quiet,
Seeing the LORD has given it a charge..."

Against Jerusalem in that day, you find it in Ezekiel, envisaged at its work, in Ch.21. The grief there discerned, is the one later found and expressed in ... Lamentations!

God is not mocked. Truth is not lampooned by any disobedience which patronises the Almighty; and the Lord of glory is - though most merciful - one who has made it clear:
Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind (Hosea).

Who of any tenderness of heart wants to see the typhoon actually ASKED FOR! for the old... and for the young! Rather the garden of repentance (as in Hosea 14) with its very pleasant savour is eminently to be desired, and this before, and not later. When things that vitally contradict Christ are found in His church, then continued toleration of it all, at length brings only ruin for all. It is like a contagious disease: you may not LIKE it and you may not WANT it, but if you do not desire to CORRECT IT, and allow it to continue in your midst, then, alas, it is your action which brings death to many. Is that... tender ?


*1 There are different regions to which one must relate in these matters.

Thus. in terms of identifying the Bible as the word of the living God, distinct, contradistinct, decisive, and singular its authorisation as the only written word of God to mankind, there is logical demonstration. The Almighty is most marvellously kind, and there nothing of which HE has not thought!

Then, when once one comes to this written word, why of course one finds what is written there! It is this point which must now be understood. You must then TRUST the One who sent it, and BELIEVE in the ONE whom He sent, His eternal companion and equal, His everlasting word, coming as His only begotten Son, example and ransom for all who come to Him IN FAITH. Without this trust, you merely insult Him. Through it, and necessarily so, you receive what He gives. The main thing He gives is the knowledge of Himself, which incorporates eternal life, when He is received as He was sent.

On coming to Christ in truth, see Barbs, Arrows and Balms Appendix II, SMR pp. 582ff., and That Magnificent Rock Ch.2; on practical turmoils, see Repent or Perish Chs. 1 and 2, SMR pp. 620ff.; on Faith, see Biblical BlessingsAppendix I; and His work in the heart and mind, see SMR pp. 611ff., on rest in Him, see SMR pp. 570ff., on Growth in Him, see SMR pp. 594ff.. On Christ, see Repent or Perish Ch.2, Barbs, Arrows and Balms 17 and Appendix IV, with Biblical Blessings Ch.9, with 16.

In all things, remember this. Many of the Jews thought they had the answer by possession of a book, somewhat in memory, somewhat in hand. That is like having E=MC2 and thinking you have the bomb. You need the application. Jesus said this (John 5:39ff.):

"You search the scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me, that you may have life. I do not receive honour from men. But I know you, that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in My Father's name and you do not receive Me. If another comes in his own name, him you will receive. How can you believe, who receive honour from one another, and do not seek the honour that comes from the only God!"

As to Him, He cannot be either reduced or produced by any man. Those who reject Him  or want Him tailor made for some century or philosophy are merely mutilating all over again. Mutilation is not the way. Acceptance by faith, that is.

The relevance of these facts:

  • whether to Professor Geering's effort to make some 'dust in Palestine' Christ who does not have the benefit of existence (cf. SMR pp. 931ff., Stepping out for Christ Ch.5 and see 'resurrection' in first and second index), and some no supernatural for the twentieth century concept fares no better;
  • or to the latest Anglican primate position as reported,
  • is that they are all like the errors of the Jews, excoriated by Christ.

(Mercy sometimes has to be precise, or the growth of evil threatens the entire body; and sometimes, even the growth may be arrested before it becomes actively malign!).

Receiving honour from one another, not authorised in any sense of dominion (I Peter 5), people often want to make even their God after their own thoughts or conceptions or desires. Like two into one, it will not go; and fractionalised gods are two a penny.

See Frantic Millenium and the Peace of Faith Ch. 5, and Barbs, Arrows and Balms 7, with Lead Us not into Educational Temptation passim, for in the last work, the entire volume deals with efforts in Victoria, Australia, to bring in an ANTI-ABSOLUTE form of religon in STATE SCHOOLS. The presuppositions are examined and shown untenable. See also SMR Ch.3 and That Magnificent Rock Ch.5.

*3 There are some bizarre enterprises in the black arts of mixing

1) the historical reality of Jesus Christ
2) some psychological, political or even territorial desire to create someone or something useful ...
3) so making some hybrid, weak, imaginary, exploitative, a mere manipulative obsession. Certainly, it is paying Christ the compliment of using His fortune of deeds and reputation, then robbing it, as Bond is reputed to have done with some billions of a company he took over in this country, to support some quite different work! Ch. 8 to follow, provides  a broader conspectus over time, but this is the method, and the results are always the same.)

However minus the works and words of Christ personally, it is as vacant as vacant land not built on, and has no more logical standing than theories that do not even meet the keen test of the teeth of scientific method. No single person at any time in history has even commenced in power, purity and performance, prediction and fulfilment of the same, to match Jesus Christ. There are many ideas; no performances in this field. it is a vacant lot, like the field of blood, of Judas.

For a detailed treatment, see Chapter 8 below.