Saturday, December 2, 2017

How To Study the Bible

In order to study the Bible correctly, you must start with the whole, understanding how the individual parts make it up, and then examine its individual parts. If you do not understand the whole, you cannot rightly understand the individual parts and how they work together to form the whole. You cannot start with the individual parts and expect to figure out the whole. Anyone who says any different has no clue what they are talking about. They are wishful thinkers spewing nonsensical ludicrousness.

Think of it like a 500-piece or 1000-piece puzzle. The whole (the completed puzzle) explains the minute (the individual pieces). You have to see the whole in order to make sense of the minute. The minute (the individual pieces) come together to form the whole (the completed puzzle), but looking at them all by themselves and never assembling them will give you no sense of the whole. Why do most people look at the box top while they are assembling the pieces? Because the whole (the completed puzzle) explains the minute (the individual pieces). Without seeing the whole (the box top) and understanding it, you are merely mucking about blindly in an attempt at trying to associate pieces, even connecting pieces that do not actually go together simply because they "fit" and "look similar." Without knowledge of the whole, you cannot rightly understand and assemble the individual parts.

Think of it like uncovering a pile of skeletal bones. Unless you see the whole, you do not know how those bones are to be connected. When you see the whole (a complete skeleton), you know exactly how those individual bones are to be assembled in order to achieve the whole. Look at archaeologists throughout history and the number of times they have incorrectly assembled bones. Prior to Iguanadon as we see and know him today, there were at least two different renderings for this animal in the past, both looking like some kind of a horse-like Godzilla creature. There is another dinosaur for which archaeologists have only ever found two arm bones and three vertebrae. Yet, they give us a complete image of how this creature supposedly looked, as well as an elaborate fairy tale about the creature. If you never saw a human being in your entire life, and all you found were two arm bones and three vertebrae, you could not accurately depict how human beings looked. Likewise, you can have all the individual skeletal bones you want, and you will fidget and fidget trying to assemble them correctly the way they are meant to be assembled. It is only by seeing and understanding the whole that you can accurately assemble the individual.


Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Taken and Left

"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took [αἴρω, aírō] them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be." Matthew 24:38-39
Gr. 142. αἴρω, aírō:
I. To take up, to lift up, to raise up.
II. To take up and place on oneself, to take up and bear, meaning to bear, carry.
III. To take up and carry away, meaning to take away, to remove by carrying, spoken of a bed.
IV. To take away, remove, with the idea of lifting away from, usually with the idea of violence and authority.

"To take away or remove out of the world by death, and so forth (Matt. 24:39)" —AMG The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament

"To take away from among the living, either by a natural death, or by violence (Mt. xxiv. 39)." —Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon
This passage contrasts "they" with "Noah." The "they" who were eating, drinking, marrying, and giving in marriage are the same "they" who did not understand and were destroyed by the flood. Grammatically, it would make no sense to change subjects midstream from "they," referring to those who perished, to "them," referring to Noah and his family. Therefore, while it is possible for aírō to be speaking of Noah in the ark, it is not probable.

"For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then there will be two men in the field; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and one will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]. Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and one will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]." Matthew 24:38-41

" "And just as it happened in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: they were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. It was the same as happened in the days of Lot: they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building; but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed. ... I tell you, on that night there will be two in one bed; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and the other will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]. There will be two women grinding at the same place; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and the other will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken [παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō] and the other will be left [ἀφίημι, aphíēmi]." And answering they said to Him, "Where, Lord?" And He said to them, "Where the body is, there also the vultures will be gathered." " Luke 17:26-30, 34-37
Gr. 863. ἀφίημι, aphíēmi:
I. To dismiss
II. To let go from one's power, possession, to let go free, let escape (Matt. 24:40, 41; Luke 17:34-36; Sept.: Prov. 4:13).
III.To let go from one's further notice, care, attendance, occupancy, i.e., to leave or let alone.
IV. To let go, i.e, to let pass, permit, suffer, with the accusative followed by the infinitive expressed or implied.

"Metaphorically, to let go from obligation toward oneself, to remit, e.g., a debt, offense, with a dative of person. Of sins, to remit the penalty of sins, i.e., to pardon, forgive, with the dative of person." —AMG The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament

"to remit, forgive" —Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon

"The Use...in the LXX. ... b. for verbs of "remission"... The object of remission is sin or guilt... The one who forgives is God... The NT Usage. ... 2. There are also the instances in which ἀφιέναι means "to remit" or "to forgive," whether in the profane sense in Mt. 18:27 and 32, or more often in the religious. ... The forgiveness denoted by ἄφεσις (ἀφιέναι) and πάρεσις is almost always that of God. ..." —Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [3/5 of this entry are dedicated to the discussion of forgiveness.]

Gr. 3880. παραλαμβάνω, paralambánō:
I. To take to oneself, seize or take into one's possession.
II. To receive with or to oneself what is given, imparted, delivered over, equal to take from another into one's own hands such as an office, dignity, ministry.

"In Matt 24:40, 41; Luke 17:34, 35, paralambánō in the passive form is used as the opposite of aphíēmi, to let be. In these verses, those who are taken are not to be misconstrued as those whom the Lord favors, as if they were the same saints spoken of in 1 Thess 4:17... The verb paralambánō in most cases indicates a demonstration in favor of the one taken, but not always. ... In John 19:16 it is used of taking Jesus to lead Him to the cross. ... The verb paralambánō is to be contrasted in Matt 24:40, 41 to aírō, to take up and away. It is used to refer to those in the days of Noah who were taken away, not being favored but being punished, while Noah and his family were left intact. ... It refers to those who, as in the days of Noah, are taken to destruction." —AMG The Complete WordStudy Dictionary New Testament

"one to be led off as a prisoner, Jn xix. 16)" —Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon
The context of these passages is addressing the Second Coming of Christ Jesus:
"For the coming of the Son of Man..." (Matt. 24:37)
"...so will the coming of the Son of Man be." (Matt. 24:39)
"...so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:24)
"...so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man." (Luke 17:26)
"It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed." (Luke 17:30)
Practically every theologian, past and present (including many of the Dispensational persuasion), agree that this passage is talking about the Second Coming of Jesus—and not the imaginary magical "Rapture." It is a fact that the context of these passages, and especially the passage in Luke 17, is quite clearly and unmistakably in reference to judgment:
"...the flood came and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:27)
"...it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all." (Luke 17:29)
Noah and Lot are not even mentioned, except in passing to refer to their time in history. The "they" and "them" are speaking of those who were destroyed. Judgment. Since verses 26-27 and 28-29 are quite obviously speaking of judgment, it stands to reason that those taken in verses 34, 35, and 36 are likewise taken in judgment. And Jesus' answer to the disciples' question of "Where?" supports this.

Anyone having never heard of the "Rapture" before, reading these passages first-hand as to those taken and those left, would naturally ask the same question as the disciples: "Where?" Anyone having never heard of the "Rapture" before, carefully paying attention to what the details of these passages reveal, would come to the conclusion that they are speaking of judgment and that those taken have been taken in judgment. Matthew 24:39 clearly expresses a taking in judgment: "...the flood came and took them all away." Luke 17:27 clearly expresses a taking in judgment: "...the flood came and destroyed them all." Luke 17:29 clearly expresses a taking in judgment: "...it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all." Ergo, Luke 17:34, 35, and 36 clearly express a taking in judgment, confirmed by Jesus' response to the disciples' question.

The context of Matthew 24:38-41 and Luke 17:26-30, 34-37 clearly has to do with judgment. These facts are irrefutable.

Monday, November 13, 2017

The Bible, the Whole Bible, and Nothing But the Bible!

by J. C. Ryle

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
Jesus answered him, "What is written in the Law? What do you read there?" Luke 10:25-26

Notice in this passage, the high honor which our Lord Jesus Christ places on the Bible. He refers the lawyer at once to the Scriptures, as the only rule of faith and practice. He does not say in reply to his question, "What does the Jewish Church say about eternal life? What do the Scribes, and Pharisees, and priests think? What is taught on the subject in the traditions of the elders?"

He takes a far simpler and more direct course. He sends his questioner at once to the writings of the Old Testament, "What is written in the Law? What do you read there?"

Let the principle contained in these words, be one of the foundation principles of our Christianity. Let the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, be the rule of our faith and practice. Holding this principle, we travel upon the king's highway. The road may sometimes seem narrow, and our faith may be severely tried--but we shall not be allowed greatly to err. Departing from this principle, we enter on a pathless wilderness. There is no telling what we may be led to believe or do. Forever let us bear this in mind. Here let us cast anchor. Here let us abide.

It matters nothing who says a thing in religion--whether an ancient father, or a modern bishop, or a learned theologian.

Is it in the Bible? Can it be proved by the Bible? If not, then it is not to be believed.

It matters nothing how beautiful and clever sermons or religious books may appear. Are they in the smallest degree contrary to Scripture? If they are, they are rubbish and poison, and guides of no value!

What does the Scripture say? This is the only rule, and measure, and gauge of religious truth. "To the law and to the testimony," says Isaiah, "if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah 8:20

Friday, November 3, 2017

The Last Trumpet

Dispensationalists, especially the KJV-Only variety, like to attempt to argue that there are two different Greek words for "trumpet" in the Bible. In the KJV, two seemingly different words appear: "trump" and "trumpet." What is a "trump"? Is it different from a "trumpet"? If it is the same thing as a "trumpet," why it is shortened to "trump" in two of the eleven verses (1 Cor. 15:52; 1 Thess. 4:16)?

When we examine both of these words in the Greek, we quickly learn that they are one and the same, the exact same thing: salpigx (σαλπιγξ) [Gr. 4536]. Once again, we have confirmed that the "last trumpet" is the last trumpet. The implication is that when that last trumpet sounds, there cannot be another trumpet after it. This is just one of several problems the Dispensationalist has with Scripture.

The word salpizo (σαλπιζω) [Gr. 4537] is to sound a trumpet, as in blowing on it to make a noise (Matt. 6:2; 1 Cor. 15:52; see also Rev. 8:6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; 9:1, 13; 10:7; 11:15). The word salpigx is the trumpet itself, the physical musical instrument.

Mt 6:2 Therefore <oun> when <hotan> thou doest <poieo> thine alms, <eleemosune> do <salpizo> not <me> sound a trumpet <salpizo> before <emprosthen> thee, <sou> as <hosper> the hypocrites <hupokrites> do <poieo> in <en> the synagogues <sunagoge> and <kai> in <en> the streets, <rhume> that <hopos> they may have glory <doxazo> of <hupo> men. <anthropos> Verily <amen> I say <lego> unto you, <humin> They have <apecho> their <autos> reward. <misthos>

Mt 24:31 And <kai> he shall send <apostello> his <autos> angels <aggelos> with <meta> a great <megas> sound <phone> of a trumpet, <salpigx> and <kai> they shall gather together <episunago> his <autos> elect <eklektos> from <ek> the four <tessares> winds, <anemos> from <apo> one end <akron> of heaven <ouranos> to <heos> the other <akron>. <autos>

1Co 14:8 For <gar> <kai> if <ean> the trumpet <salpigx> give <didomi> an uncertain <adelos> sound, <phone> who <tis> shall prepare himself <paraskeuazo> to <eis> the battle <polemos>?

1Co 15:52 In <en> a moment, <atomos> in <en> the twinkling <rhipe> of an eye, <ophthalmos> at <en> the last <eschatos> trump: <salpigx> for <gar> the trumpet shall sound, <salpizo> and <kai> the dead <nekros> shall be raised <egeiro> incorruptible, <aphthartos> and <kai> we <hemeis> shall be changed. <allasso>

1Th 4:16 For <hoti> the Lord <kurios> himself <autos> shall descend <katabaino> from <apo> heaven <ouranos> with <en> a shout, <keleuma> with <en> the voice <phone> of the archangel, <archaggelos> and <kai> with <en> the trump <salpigx> of God: <theos> and <kai> the dead <nekros> in <en> Christ <Christos> shall rise <anistemi> first: <proton>

Heb 12:19 And <kai> the sound <echos> of a trumpet, <salpigx> and <kai> the voice <phone> of words; <rhema> which <hos> voice they that heard <akouo> intreated <paraiteomai> that the word <logos> should <prostithemi> not <me> be spoken <prostithemi> to them <autos> any more: <me>

Re 1:10 I was <ginomai> in <en> the Spirit <pneuma> on <en> the Lord's <kuriakos> day, <hemera> and <kai> heard <akouo> behind <opiso> me <mou> a great <megas> voice, <phone> as <hos> of a trumpet, <salpigx>

Re 4:1 ¶ After <meta> this <tauta> I looked, <eido> and, <kai> behold, <idou> a door <thura> was opened <anoigo> in <en> heaven: <ouranos> and <kai> the first <protos> voice <phone> which <hos> I heard <akouo> was as it were of <hos> a trumpet <salpigx> talking <laleo> with <meta> me; <emou> which said, <lego> Come up <anabaino> hither, <hode> and <kai> I will shew <deiknuo> thee <soi> things which <hos> must <dei> be <ginomai> hereafter <meta>. <tauta>

Re 8:2 And <kai> I saw <eido> the seven <hepta> angels <aggelos> which <hos> stood <histemi> before <enopion> God <theos>; and <kai> to them <autos> were given <didomi> seven <hepta> trumpets <salpigx>.

Re 8:6 And <kai> the seven <hepta> angels <aggelos> which <ho> had <echo> the seven <hepta> trumpets <salpigx> prepared <hetoimazo> themselves <heautou> to <hina> sound <salpizo>.

Re 8:13 And <kai> I beheld, <eido> and <kai> heard <akouo> an <heis> angel <aggelos> flying <petomai> through <en> the midst of heaven, <mesouranema> saying <lego> with a loud <megas> voice, <phone> Woe, <ouai> woe, <ouai> woe, <ouai> to the inhabiters <katoikeo> of <epi> the earth <ge> by reason of <ek> the other <loipoy> voices <phone> of the trumpet <salpigx> of the three <treis> angels, <aggelos> which <ho> are yet <mello> to sound <salpizo>!

Re 9:14 Saying <lego> to the sixth <hektos> angel <aggelos> which <hos> had <echo> the trumpet, <salpigx> Loose <luo> the four <tessares> angels <aggelos> which <ho> are bound <deo> in <epi> the great <megas> river <potamos> Euphrates. <Euphrates>

Thursday, November 2, 2017

Was Brian Houston Taken Out of Context?

Back in 2014, Brian Houston, pastor of Hillsong Church in Australia, had these words to say in a sermon:
"Do you know – take it all the way back into the Old Testament and the Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God. Allah to a Muslim; to us, Abba Father God."
Later, after several people began questioning his already questionable theology, Brian accused his critics of taking him out of context. But did they? Observe what he said:
"The Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God."
Serve. Present tense. In other words, Brian did say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. Quite obviously, Brian has no clue what context actually is. But this is not surprising considering the false doctrines that he preaches, teaches, and believes; doctrines contrary to the Word of God.

Not only did Brian truly say that Muslims and Christians worship the same God, but his sermon demonstrates clearly that he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. For someone who is supposed to be a pastor, one would expect him to do better research and actually know something about what he is going to attempt to talk about. But Brian is clueless.

When you go back to the days of Abraham, and the days of Isaac and Ishmael, there were no Muslims. Apparently, in Arabic, the two letters "MU" are similar to or equivalent to the two letters "ER" in English (e.g., bakER, butchER, farmER, etc.). So the word "Muslim" is a contraction of MU-Islam (a follower of Islam). Islam did not exist prior to the last 1400 years. Ergo, there were no such thing as Muslims prior to the last 1400 years. The predominant religion of the Persians was Zoroastrianism, while the Arabs had many tribal deities that were all worshipped in one city—Mecca. Arabians were polytheists. This pantheon of gods and tribal idols were held in the Kaaba, which was also seen and worshipped as a separate god.

When Muhammad destroyed all these other gods (except for the Kaaba, which is still worshipped by Muslims today) and erected Allah in their place, that is when Muslims began to exist; as they started following the false religion Muhammad created. The fact that Muslims worship the Kaaba can be seen from their actions. When you must travel to a particular city, walk around, touch, bow down before, and pray before an object, yes, you do worship it. And the claim that the Kaaba is the house of Allah only makes it worse for Muslims as they are committing shirk by doing what they are doing, because they are making it equal to Allah. Despite their protests, Muslims also worship Muhammad, above and beyond their worship of Allah. If you bad mouth Allah, Muslims do not do a thing. But if you bad mouth their false prophet, Muhammad (Peace Never Knew Him), they get irate and want to murder you.

Did the sons of Isaac and the sons of Ishmael worship the same God? For a time, most probably. How long a time, we do not know. But it obviously was not very long. Based on Scripture and the people groups who inhabited the Middle East after the times of Abraham and his sons, none of the other people groups believed in the God of Abraham. That means that if the sons of Ishmael did believe in the same God as the sons of Isaac for a time, eventually they turned to false gods instead. We see Israel doing this repeatedly in their own history, so why would we think the descendants of Ishmael would not have done the same?

Brian was absolutely correct in stating that his words were a clumsy delivery. But when you view more of his sermon, one wonders if it was "clumsy" or deliberate? And that after he received a backlash he attempted to save face.
"How do you view God? In a desert there's two types of birds: there's vultures and there's hummingbirds. One lives off dead carcasses; rotting meat. The other lives off the beautiful, sweet nectar in a particular flower on a particular desert plant. In the same desert, they both find what they're looking for."
That entire spiel is utter nonsense. It does not answer his question, "How do you view God?" It has nothing to do with his question, being totally and completely unrelated in any way, shape or form. But when you look at what is being said here, about the two birds, and what he said above, it is quite obvious that he is saying that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. If he was not, then this pointless illustration is precisely that—pointless.

Why ask the question "How do you view God?" and then answer with an illustration of two different birds both getting what they are looking for, only to continue on to say "The Muslim and you, we actually serve the same God"? Is he claiming that Muslims who follow Allah find what they are looking for? If they are looking for Hell, then, yes, they absolutely find what they are looking for. But they do not find Jesus. They do not find God the Father. They do not find salvation. So the illustration is ridiculous and ludicrous.

When you look at the facts, Muslims and Christians never worshipped the same God. Ever! We never worshipped the same God in the past, and we do not worship the same God today. Muslims serve a god created in the image of Muhammad. Brian would know this if he bothered to do his homework and research things the way a pastor is supposed to, instead of preaching empty, vain messages not based an iota on Scripture.

Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Do Not Love the World

Horatius Bonar

"Do not love the world or anything in the world." 1 John 2:15

Why?
  1. Because the gain of it, is the loss of the soul--Matthew 16:25-26.
  2. Because its friendship is enmity to God--James 4:4.
  3. Because it did not know Christ--John 1:10; 17:25.
  4. Because it hates Christ--John 7:7; 15:18.
  5. Because the Holy Spirit has forbidden us--1 John 2:15.
  6. Because Christ did not pray for it--John 17:9.
  7. Because Christ's people do not belong to it--John 17:16.
  8. Because its Prince is Satan--John 13:31; 16:11.
  9. Because Christ's kingdom is not of it--John 18:36.
  10. Because its wisdom is foolishness--1 Corinthians 1:20.
  11. Because Christ does not belong to it--John 8:23.
  12. Because it is condemned--1 Corinthians 11:32.
  13. Because it is passing away--1 Corinthians 7:31.
  14. Because it slew Christ--James 5:6; Matthew 21:39.
  15. Because it is crucified to us--Galatians 6:14.
  16. Because we are crucified to it--Galatians 6:14.
  17. Because it is the seat of wickedness--2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 5:19.
  18. Because its god is the evil one--2 Corinthians 4:4.


Don Fortner

"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him." 1 John 2:15

Worldliness is an undue attachment to this world. It is living for this world--its riches, its honor, its joys and its cares. It is living by the principles of this world: greed, covetousness, deceit and lust.

Nothing is more dangerous to the souls of men--than the love of the world.
Nothing more effectually chokes out the influence of the gospel in a man's heart--than the cares of this world.
Nothing is more difficult to avoid--than an undue attachment to this world.

Therefore, John sets these four words up as a beacon. They stand in blazing letters to warn us of great danger: "LOVE NOT THE WORLD!"

Beloved, this world and all that it offers, is no more than a bubble that soon must burst! Your money, your farms, your houses, your influence, your families--everything here is temporary. It will all vanish away!

We laugh at the small child who cries when the bubbles he is playing with burst. But, for a rational man to be so attached to a bubble, is a most irrational thing!

What fools they are who love and seek this world! I cannot warn you enough of the danger of worldliness--of loving, seeking, and living for this world!

Are you God's child? Are you risen with Christ? Do you live in the hope of eternal glory?

Then count this world to be a dead thing.

Live no longer for this world.
Set your heart on things above.
Live above this pile of rubbish that must soon burn.
Live to do the will of God, seek the glory of Christ, further the gospel of the grace of God, and serve the people of God. Quit seeking those things for which unbelieving men live, and seek those things which are above--life, immortality, and glory.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Having A Pope of Your Own

from J. C. Ryle

"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong!" Galatians 2:11

One lesson we learn from this verse, is that great ministers may make great mistakes. The best of men are weak and fallible. Unless the grace of God holds them up, any one of them may go astray at any time. Let us learn not to put implicit confidence in any man's opinion, merely because he is a minister. Peter was one of the very chief Apostles--and yet he could err. What are the best of ministers but men--dust, ashes, and clay--men of like passions with ourselves, men exposed to temptations, men liable to weaknesses and infirmities?

We all naturally love to have a pope of our own. We are far too ready to think, that because some great minister or some learned man says a thing; or because our own minister, whom we love, says a thing--that it must be right, without examining whether it is in Scripture or not.

It is absurd to suppose that ordained men cannot go wrong. We should follow them so far as they teach according to the Bible, but no further. We should believe them so long as they can say, "Thus it is written! Thus says the Lord!" but further than this, we are not to go. Infallibility is not to be found in ordained men, but in the Bible alone!

Let us take care that we do not place implicit confidence on our own minister's opinion, however godly he may be. Peter was a man of mighty grace, and yet he could err. Your minister may be a man of God indeed, and worthy of all honor for his preaching and example; but do not make a pope of him! Do not place his word on the same level with the Word of God.

The Christian minister is not infallible! The vulgar notion that a clergyman is not likely to hold or teach erroneous doctrines, and that we seldom need to doubt the truth of anything he tells us in the pulpit--is one of the most mischievous errors which has been bequeathed by the Church of Rome. It is a complete delusion! Ordination confers no immunity from error! Ministers, like Churches--may err both in living and matters of faith.

The Apostle Peter erred greatly at Antioch, where Paul withstood him to the face. Many of the church Fathers and Reformers and Puritans made great mistakes. The greatest errors have been begun by ministers!

The teaching of all ministers ought to be constantly compared with the Scriptures--and when it contradicts the Scriptures, it ought not to be believed. However high a clergyman's office may be, and however learned and devout he may appear--he is still only an uninspired man, and can make mistakes. His opinion must never be set above the Word of God!

Let us receive nothing, believe nothing, follow nothing--which is not in the Bible, nor can be proved by the Bible. Let our rule of faith, our touchstone of all teaching, be the written Word of God alone!

"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true!" Acts 17:11