Waymarks Contender No.70
Let us walk by the same rule Phil.
3: 16
Final Edition. Material is now published on my other blogs.
Report of Open Air Preaching
September 1st Leagrave, LUTON. Two of us went to the
Leagrave shopping centre to preach on this Saturday morning. This is just one
mile from home but yet the first time I had ever preached here. I had always
thought the site did not lend itself to open air preaching. Darryll brought his
banner with him and we were much helped in the Lord. We stood by the pedestrian
crossing which was very busy and every few moments we had twenty seconds
quietness in order to preach the gospel. I have now developed a twenty seconds
Gospel Message. It is comprised of one gospel text followed by one comment. I
think the queue at the Natwest wall till
on the other side of the street was also within hearing.
We were able to engage in several conversations. One
involved a lady from Shankill Road. She protested her atheism and then sat
listening to the preaching. She sat within two yards of us so the preaching
continued for more than twenty seconds. As she left she showed a little more
interest.
Another young man insisted he had never before heard the
message we preached.
AV Verses Vindicated
Psalm 22: 16
They pierced my hands
and my feet
“my hands and feet have shrivelled” NRSV.
“ ̶oh, my poor hands and feet!”
CEB
There
is no serious doubt concerning the integrity of the Hebrew text which reads aree (lion). They lioned” Him. The cruel nails hammered in were as the fangs and
claws of a lion.
There
is no doubt for the believer that the Authorized Version is correct in its
translation because it is vindicated in the New Testament. See John 19: 37and again another Scripture saith, They
shall look on him whom they pierced.
Any alteration
robs this verse of its prophetic nature.
Proverbs
29: 18
Where
there is no vision (chazon) the people perish
“where
there is no revelation the people cast off restraint.” NIV
“Where there is no
message from God, the people don’t control themselves.” NIrV
Chazon
is
never translated as “revelation” in the Authorized Bible. The word revelation
is not used on the Authorized Version, “Message” does not translate chazon.
Isaiah
14: 9
Hell
from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee
at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth
“Sheol
beneath is stirred up to meet you when you come, it rouses the shades to greet
you….”
NRSV
“The
grave below is all astir to meet you at your coming; it rouses the spirits of
the departed to greet you….”
NIV
The
Hebrew word sheol may be translated
grave or hell. The context determines the English translation. The first usage
is in Genesis 37: 35 where Jacob says, “I
will go down into the grave”.
The
first time hell is used is in Deuteronomy 32: 22, A fire is kindled in my anger and shall burn unto the lowest hell
Jacob
believed in God but thought he would end his days sorrowing.
Fires do not burn in material graves where
there is no oxygen, neither are graves usually seen as higher or lower. They do
not experience emotions so they cannot be moved.
The
word Hell is removed from most modern versions because of the fear it holds.
See
my notes on Hades/Sheol
John 3: 18
He that believeth on him is not
condemned (krino): but he that believeth not is condemned
already….
“He
that believeth on him is not judged….”
RV
“anyone
who believes in him is not judged….”
NIrV (n.b. the NIV kept
“condemned”)
“He
that believes on him is not judged….”
JND
“No
one who believes in Him has to fear condemnation….” TV (The
Voice)
There
is no textual conflict here. The Received Text has krino translated condemned in the Authorized Bible, as have many modern versions. The Nestle-Aland
Greek text also reads krino.
The
difference between the AV and the RV is a matter of interpretation and is not a
textual issue.
Krino is often translated
as judge in the AV Bible indicating that the translators were well aware of
different meanings, The context decides which should be used. Consider John 5:
22 where krino (verb)and krisis (noun) are used in the same verse; For
the Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son.
The
unbeliever is condemned already. The sentence has been passed. The criminal
(unbelief is a crime against God) awaits the execution of the sentence on the
Day of Judgment.
1 Peter 4: 11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God
“if
any man speaketh, speaking as it were, oracles of God;” RV
The
adverb, as, means “equally”, that is, the preacher speaks with and in the full
authority of the word of God If he
cannot do this he is a false teacher.
The
Revised Version destroys the authority of the man speaking. The interpolation
“as it were” does not translate the adverb hos
in this verse. Compare Acts 17: 14, ….the
brethren sent away Paul to go as it were to the sea. Here hos rather means
“in a manner of speaking / as if it were true.”
Pretence
cannot be permitted in 1 Peter 4: 11.
The
four mentions of the oracles refer to the utterances of God. They are Acts 7:
38, (The law given at Sinai), Romans 3: 2 (referring to the Old Testament
Scriptures), Hebrews 5: 2 (referring to the first principles of Scripture), and
1 Peter 4: 11.
If the minister of God is not speaking, “thus
saith the Lord” then he is a deceiver.
D West refuted
Q. Why should
modern versions (e.g. the NIV) of the Scriptures not be used publicly, when
speakers often quote from other versions when ministering the Word of God?
̶ Question Box; Believer’s
Magazine; July 2004.
A.
We believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, i.e. not only its declared
truths, but its actual words, are God-breathed and were received by men and
written without error; "All scripture is given by inspiration of God"
(2 Tim 3.16). When we say that we believe in verbal, plenary inspiration, i.e.
in an inerrant Bible, we should understand that this claim is being made for
the original writings.
It cannot be justifiably claimed that the KJV
(or AV) is a flawless translation; such a translation does not exist because of
the very nature of translation work. Thus e.g. it is widely agreed i) that the
AV in 2 Thessalonians 2: 2, "as that the day of Christ is at hand",
should more correctly read, "as that the day of the Lord is present"
- the understanding of the whole context in 2 Thessalorians 2 demands the
alternative rendering; and ii) that the AV of Hebrews 2.17, "to make
reconciliation for the sins of the people", should be better translated,
"to make propitiation for the sins of the people". Sins can never be
reconciled to God, it is persons who are reconciled.
We should, nevertheless, be thankful for the
beautiful and accurate AV. The present writer reads it daily and would never
desire to see it replaced, but it is a translation and therefore subject to the
ability of the translators to communicate to us,
in
English, the meaning of the original languages. We praise God
for
the amazing success they achieved.
Among the assemblies of the Lord's people
with which the present writer is acquainted, by far the greater majority of
believers read the AV. He would therefore strongly advocate the continued use
of the AV for public reading. The argument that the younger generation cannot
understand the language of the AV is rather weak, since such have had far
greater educational opportunities than their forebears. In the opinion of the
writer, it is perfectly in order for a brother, when ministering the Word, to
give alternative renderings for a word or phrase from other translations, if he
feels this will lead to a clearer understanding.
D West begins his answer by
stating that “the Bible is divinely inspired”, (present tense used) He then
goes on to reveal that, rather, it is the original writings that were
inspired. The Bible (he doesn’t say which bible he is referring to) and the original
writings are not regarded by bible critics as being identically the word of
God.
D West does not remind his
readers that no person has seen the original writings since around 150
AD.at the latest, although the claim is that they were inspired. He quotes 2
Tim. 3: 16 all scripture is given by inspiration of God but his reply
suggests that he doesn’t really believe it, because he has in his first
paragraph told his readers that inspiration is history. He means “all scripture
WAS given by inspiration God” and there is no inspired Scripture in existence
today, but he dare not say it.
D West does NOT believe in an
extant verbal, and plenary inspired Bible. He makes this very plain in his
statement. In this he is in line with Brethren leadership today, which is
seriously compromised and largely apostate. It is no longer the liberal wing of
the Brethren movement alone that rejects the fundamental doctrine of the
preservation of Scripture. Those once regarded as conservative are doing the
same. Other writers have shown that “Brethren” scholars have been in the
vanguard of textual criticism.
The magazine that gives the
above Q and A (Believers Magazine; July 2004 carries an editorial
and an article lamenting the deplorable condition of assemblies. A pretence is
made at addressing this problem but none will face up to the truth. If our
Bible teachers persist in telling their congregations that there are mistakes,
mistranslations, and errors in the Bible they are holding in their hands then
faith will be destroyed.
The other major reason for
apostasy among us is that there are large numbers of unconverted folk in
assembly fellowship. These have no faith.
The view expressed in this
“answer” does much to destroy faith.
D West writes that a flawless translation “does not exist
because of the very nature of translation work”. That is, the Bible is no
different to any other book and ordinary natural laws must apply in its
translation. There is no place allowed for supernatural overruling. So
Brethren Bible critics will have God starting the thing off but then retreating, frustrated that He hasn’t got the
power to maintain it. This really is the view of the apostate scholars whom D
West appears to highly exalt. It also makes God a liar because He has pledged
himself to maintain His word intact and we have quoted enough verses in the
past to make it unnecessary to repeat all of
them now. Just ponder Ps. 12:
6,7; Ps.119: 89; 1 Pet. 1: 23,25; Mtt.24: 35, etc. Our scholarly Bible destroyers reject these
verses anyway. They do not believe a 100% faithful Bible exists; that it
cannot, and never will, exist, and that God is either powerless to do anything
about it or can’t be bothered anyway. Many Brethren teachers today believe that
God CANNOT communicate fully with men apart from through them. That is, they
uphold clerisy.
The AV reading of 2 Thes 2: 2
is given as an example of error in translation. This shows an ignorance of the
issues involved in Textual Criticism. Translation is not an issue in this
verse. It is a matter of which manuscripts should be used. The AV is wrong,
apparently, because it upsets the theology of some. The critic doesn’t
understand the meaning of the day of Christ. If he doesn’t understand the
Bible, it is wrong.
The Received Text reading is
η ημερα χριστου which cannot possibly be mistranslated. There is hardly a
manuscript that does not have this reading, apart from a handful of Alexandrian
mss. We are confident therefore, that we have the true reading which most
certainly would have been the original writing of the apostle himself. D
W admits such to be verbally inspired and yet rejects it in this verse. The
modern critics admit to not knowing for certain the true content of any original
writing.
The second alleged error is
the AV translation of Hebrews 2: 17 where we read to make reconciliation for
the sins of the people. We are told it should be “to make propitiation for
the sins of the people”, because sins can never be reconciled to God. Here, the
gobble-de-gook rendering of J N Darby is preferred. The AV translators were
well aware of the word propitiation (which is a synonym for reconciliation)
because they used it three times in the N.T. at Rom.3: 25, 1 John 2: 2, 1 John
4: 10. It will be noted that the Greek words are not as in Heb. 2: 17. The AV
Translators were all linguists which our modern men are not. If propitiation
had been the better word we are confident they would have used it. What they
gave us is the English Bible that God wanted us to have. If we do not believe
this we have NO bible, which is where our critics intend us to end up.
The AV Bible is
straightforward and easily understood. Because of the sins of the people,
reconciliation to God became necessary and was made by Christ.
So we should be thankful for
the “beautiful and accurate AV”! Only, our critics tell us, in the New
Testament it is not accurate in 8000
places! Accurate and inaccurate
at the same time!
Is it in order, to give
alternative renderings from other translations? The Bible teacher will
inevitably be required to give the sense of a word or passage. This is the work
of the expositor. He doesn’t need to
quote from such perversions of Scripture as the NIV, which translation is based
on false documents and Dynamic Equivalence (which essentially means you can
make it up as you go along). We know
that Sodomites were involved with the production of this depraved book and
copyright is presently owned by Rupert Murdoch.
As it is, those who quote
publicly from the NIV and other perversions usually prefix their words with “a
better rendering is” and this is always false. They don’t tell you that the
very words and meanings have been changed. A deceitful witness speaketh lies.
Prov.14: 25. D W cannot produce a single example where the NIV gives a
clearer understanding of a verse than found in the AV.
D West’s answer has done a
grave injustice to truth. He strikes a blow at faith. He drags assemblies into
apostasy.
It will only be a matter of
time before the very latest bible obscenity is being quoted by our erudite
brethren. I refer to the “As Good as New” version which has the approval of
Rowan Williams.
In it, 1 Cor. 7: 1-2, 8-9
reads:- “Some of you think the best way to cope with sex is for men and women
to keep right away from each other. That is more likely to lead to sexual
offences. My advice is for everyone to have a regular partner.... There’s
nothing wrong with remaining single, like me. But if you know you have strong
needs, get yourself a partner. Better than being frustrated.” This is an open
incitement to fornication.
Our brethren will recoil in
horror at the above statement (we would like to think so, anyway!) But as they
are not differentiating between versions, one appearing as good as another,
then we fear the worst.
D W must be aware that modern
versionism is associated with liberalism and neo-evangelicalism, and with this,
immorality.
Why I pray using “Thee” and “Thou”
I
pray privately and publicly using “thee” and “thou” because that is how I was
taught when I first got saved in 1955. My teachers taught me by example. They
were all young men under the age of 25 and they came from a variety of
denominations. We were all servicemen.
In
those days no one thought of praying differently. This was largely because we
all held to the Authorized Bible. This version maintained the singular forms of
speech even though they had passed out of common usage in the English language
before it was printed in 1611 AD. They were kept because they made an accurate
translation from the Greek and Hebrew. Their usage in prayer gives a more
reverent approach to the Father.
I
pray using these singular personal pronouns not because of tradition . I was
not brought up in Christian circles. I was able to pray in this manner from the
day I got saved. This had nothing to do with my education. I listened and
learned.I find that usually those who pray in modern style have little regard
for the AV Bible and move in liberal neo-evangelical circles. “Thee and thou”
forms are still maintained in wedding services and other ceremonial occasions;
e.g “I Tom Brown, take thee, Mary Jones, to be my lawful wedded wife”. There is
a connotation of intimacy and affection in this.I thank God for the English
language which allows me to address deity in terms not found generally on the
lips of the ungodly. If other languages do not allow this its users are that
much the poorer.
Further Reminiscences
The following took place between September, 1972 and April 1974.
We
arrived in Grimsby, my family and I, where I took up my first teaching post. I
was 36 years old.
We
were received into the assembly meeting at the Gospel Hall, Springfield Road,
Scartho. I had tried to research this assembly before we moved but few brethren
had heard of them.
It
wasn’t long before we discovered we had joined a hotch-potch of Glantonites and
liberal open brethren who had got fed up with the leading light at Wellowgate,
Grimsby.
Dr
Churchward a one-time missionary, joined his
Glantonite partner and a crowd followed on after him to start a
conglomerate assembly in Scartho.
Mr
Tharp, Who also ran a Glanton meeting outside Grimsby, “reminded” us in a
ministry meeting that The Church Was In Ruins. This is foundational exclusive
heresy so I raised an objection.
And
thus my troubles began. It is a serious offence to question any utterance of a
senior brother so I was carpeted.
Dr
Churchward interviewed me. I had said Tharp’s words were blasphemous and so I
had upset him.
The
church is the body of Christ and to describe it as just so much rubble has to
mock Christ.
But
I must learn to suppress my foolish notions or there would be no place for me
at Scartho.
What
did Dr Churchward believe? I was never told.
A
few weeks later another notable leader, Mr McClean (an SMO) told us (I quote)
“when Christ was on earth He was in essence less than God” .
I
withdrew from this assembly the same morning, quit my teaching post the
following Monday, Put our house up for sale and returned to Lutom.
….and
then my troubles really began.
We
returned to the assembly we had left two years earlier; Onslow Road Gospel Hall,
and where I had attended the weeknight meetings for the previous three months
while commuting from Grimsby. But we had no
Letter of from the Grimsby
assembly so we were refused fellowship. My movements, manner of life, doctrine
was of course fully known to the Brethren in Luton but I was no longer a
licenced member so I was barred. The three elders at Luton wanted to receive me
but certain men were determined to keep me out. I was told, no letter – no
membership.
Gordon
Brind, one of the three elders, wrote to the Grimsby assembly and asked if they
could supply a letter. They were willing to do so and I was then received with
my family at Luton.
With
hindsight I see this as evidence of my brainwashed state at that time. If a
blaspheming men at Grimsby were ready to receive me then the Luton assembly
would do likewise. Very unwisely I accepted this.
So
it was “out of the frying pan and into the fire.”
Questions for KJV Critics
1. Since
you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you
correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?
2. Do
you have a perfect Bible?
3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is
our final authority in all matters of faith and /practice/, could you please
show us where
Jesus, Peter,
James, Paul, or John ever /practiced/ your terminology
("the
Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals
say...a better
rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?
4. Since you do
not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's
word"?
5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the
greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; John 2:27), who taught you that the King James
Bible was
not infallible,
the Holy Spirit or man?
6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of
man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you
believe
education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more
qualified to
translate God's word today than in 1611?
7. There is one
true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true
born-again believers in Christ, yet there
are many false
churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach
that there is
one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired
His holy words in the "originals," but has since/lost/ them, since no
one has a perfect
Bible today?
9. Isn't it true that when you use the term
"the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are
MANY Greek TEXTS
(plural),
rather than just one?
10. Before the
first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and
taught throughout the
world. God
blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were
saved. Today,
with the many new translations on the market, very few
are being
saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the
most from the
new versions, God or Satan?
Author unknown
Quote
1.
Everywhere
we look “evangelicals” are turning to Roman Catholic styles of contemplative
spirituality (which in many cases were borrowed from pagan sources), such as
ritualistic rote prayers, chanting, meditation, centering prayer, the use of
prayer beads, Stations of the Cross, lectio divina, labyrinths, and “the
daily office.” -D Cloud re our
colossian studies
2.
Again, only he is
a fit minister of the Church who is able to refute false teachers. That is
listed as one of the necessary qualifications of an elder or bishop:
"Holding fast the faithful Word as he hath been taught, that he may be
able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers...whose
mouths must be stopped" (Titus 1:9-11). The popular demand that the
public teacher refrain from polemics is not supported by Scripture.
Scripture admonishes pastors to "avoid foolish questions and genealogies
and contentions about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain"
(Titus 3:9). Nor dare we engage in polemics from carnal motives, in carnal
zeal. "For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the
flesh" (2 Cor. 10:3). It is also to be noted that in Titus 1:9 the words
"able by sound doctrine to exhort" precede "able to convince
the gainsayer." That means that the clear presentation of the true
doctrine must come before the refutation of the false doctrine.
- Franz Pieper, 1852-1931, Professor, President of Missouri Synod,
author of Christian Dogmatics (taken from the Berean Call website)
|
3.
“On
earth the Lord laid aside His manifestations of deity” .̶ Brian Chapman. (Trustee: CountiesUK)
This
is a blasphemous attack on the person of Christ. Christ first manifested His
glory at the wedding in Cana. If this was not an open demonstration of deity it
must have been some kind of conjuring trick.
Versionist Unbelief on the Internet
I recently got involved in a “Bible Version Forum” on the Internet. The
question of versions was being debated and I was interested to know the spiritual
standing of those contributing. So I asked contributors individually if they
were saved. The question provoked quite a degree of contempt from some while
most just ignored the question. The only two who were prepared to make a public
acknowledgment of salvation were the two who held to the AV bible. I am not
saying that all who hold to modern versions are unconverted but it certainly
appeared so on this particular forum. There are a number of reasons why our
brethren hold to modern versions. They may be influenced by the “scholars”.
They are so clever, how can they be wrong? Supporters of the “scholars” will
often tell us they are, or were, godly men. The inference from that being that
any in disagreement with the “scholars” must be ungodly men. Our brethren do
not want to appear unscholarly when they occupy the teacher’s platform so they
must ape the scholars in their criticisms of the word of God, the AV Bible.
Others are uncertain because they have not personally examined the weight
of evidence in favour of the AV bible.
However, I believe that because the AV Bible is the proven word of God it
is under immense attack from Satan in these closing days and therefore those
who are his instruments in attack are very largely unregenerate men. What folly
to think that these men could not find their way in to OUR circles of
fellowship. They crept in unawares in Jude’s day. What blindness to think they
could never be lauded as the chief men among the modern-day brethren!
*****
Received by Email
Dear friend,
I feel I need to point to the fact that what you
share on your site is very much the fruit of a very traditional, conservative
and old fashioned view of Christianity. Praise God that Jesus is alive today in
the 21st century as he has always been and as such His word is still
alive today, whether in “high” English or “common” English.
By the way why once again discuss about
translations? Or have you forgotten that Jesus did not speak English but Aramaic
or, to put it in modern terms, “common English”?
In love to all
Alex.
Dear Alex,
Thank you for
your email and for looking at my website. You say that what I share is the
fruit of a very traditional, conservative and old fashioned view of
Christianity. What I share, is the fruit of my own labours and research. It is
not the result of a biased view, for I
had to change my mind many years ago when I realized the NIV that I had bought
was not what it claimed to be. It is not a bigoted view because I have the
works of most of the leading Textual Critics on my bookshelves and I have read
them before publishing my own conclusions.
What is wrong
with tradition? Paul warns to separate from every brother that walketh
disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.2 Thes.3:6 If
you will not have tradition under any circumstance, then on the authority of
the word of God, I bid you farewell. Tradition
based on Scripture is essential for the child of God. If you are
speaking of the traditions of men (Col.2 :7) then we must beware them. Modern
versionism is the tradition of men. It is based on an apostate scholarship
which men highly esteem. The Bible which I believe in is the one “handed down”
through the centuries, having a proven pedigree, which no modern bible has.
The child of
God, following his Lord and Master will be conservative, because his Lord and
Master is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Heb.13:8.
His unchangeability is true conservatism. Jude urges us to contend earnestly
for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. V.3. The faith¾ its
practices and precepts¾ have been delivered once and for all.
They are valid today without the need for any updating. Those determined on
change are the liberalists. They are marked by a carelessness of attitude in
worship, being casual in dress and in language. They are ‘into’ Contemporary
Christian(?) Music with its devilish beat. They do not live lives separate from
the world. They love the world with its theatres and football and television.
And being worldlings they use the worldlings modern versions. They simply do
not like the straight paths. Yes, I do indeed seek to maintain the old
conservative values. That’s because I have been converted.
You may call
me ‘old-fashioned’ if you will. What I believe and practice is not out of date.
We are careful about our language in prayer to God. Our womenfolk cover their
heads in the gatherings of the Lord’s people and they remain silent. Our godly
young women do not parade themselves trousered, bob-haired, mouths painted, and
jewelry hanging from their ears. They are not seen on the beach near-naked
either.
I believe it is faith in God that you describe
as old-fashioned. Perhaps you hold to things new-fangled? They are the things
produced by an apostate Christendom.
I don’t know
anything about “high” English. I do know that the translators of the NIV went
down to the New York
ghettoes to gather their common (rather, gutter) English.
I do know that
my AV Bible is written in plain English, a large number of its words being of
one syllable.
You say that
your Jesus is alive today in the 21st century. I don’t recognize
him. He bears no relationship to the Christ of glory in Whom I have trusted
these past 50 years. I find my Saviour outside the camp and still despised and
hated by the world.
Lastly, you
ask ‘why once again discuss about translations?’ While wicked men are foisting
their money making perversions and parodies of Scripture on an apostate
Christendom we raise our voice against them and encourage believers to maintain
their confidence in the pure word of God. The Lord spoke Hebrew. There is no
evidence that He or the apostles spoke in Aramaic. That is an old wives tale on
a par with Darwinism and the theory.
Yours
Ron
*****
A
preacher on the fence
From out of the millions of the earth
God often calls a man
To preach the Word, and for the truth
To take a royal stand.
‘Tis sad to see him shun the Cross,
Nor stand in its defence
Between the fields of right and wrong:
A preacher on the fence.
Before him are the souls of men
Bound for Heaven or Hell;
An open Bible in his hand,
And yet he will not tell
All the truth that’s written there,
It haveth an offence—
The joys of Heaven, the horrors of Hell—
A preacher on the fence.
Now surely God has called the man
To battle for the right.
‘Tis his to ferret out the wrong
And turn on us the light.
And yet he dare not tell the truth,
He fears the consequence.
The most disgusting thing on earth
Is a preacher on the fence.
If he should stand up for the wrong,
The right he’d not defend;
If he should stand up for the right,
The wrong he would offend.
His mouth is closed, he cannot speak
For freedom or against.
Great God deliver us from
A preacher on the fence.
But soon both sides will find him out
And brand him as a fraud,
A coward who dares not to please
The devil or his God.
Oh God, free us from fear of man,
From cowardly pretence;
Cleanse out the dross and fear of loss,
And keep us off the fence.
Anon
God often calls a man
To preach the Word, and for the truth
To take a royal stand.
‘Tis sad to see him shun the Cross,
Nor stand in its defence
Between the fields of right and wrong:
A preacher on the fence.
Before him are the souls of men
Bound for Heaven or Hell;
An open Bible in his hand,
And yet he will not tell
All the truth that’s written there,
It haveth an offence—
The joys of Heaven, the horrors of Hell—
A preacher on the fence.
Now surely God has called the man
To battle for the right.
‘Tis his to ferret out the wrong
And turn on us the light.
And yet he dare not tell the truth,
He fears the consequence.
The most disgusting thing on earth
Is a preacher on the fence.
If he should stand up for the wrong,
The right he’d not defend;
If he should stand up for the right,
The wrong he would offend.
His mouth is closed, he cannot speak
For freedom or against.
Great God deliver us from
A preacher on the fence.
But soon both sides will find him out
And brand him as a fraud,
A coward who dares not to please
The devil or his God.
Oh God, free us from fear of man,
From cowardly pretence;
Cleanse out the dross and fear of loss,
And keep us off the fence.
Anon
His mouth is closed, he cannot speak
For freedom or against.
Great God deliver us from
A preacher on the fence.
But soon both sides will find him out
And brand him as a fraud,
A coward who dares not to please
The devil or his God.
Oh God, free us from fear of man,
From cowardly pretence;
Cleanse out the dross and fear of loss,
And keep us off the fence.
Anon
For freedom or against.
Great God deliver us from
A preacher on the fence.
But soon both sides will find him out
And brand him as a fraud,
A coward who dares not to please
The devil or his God.
Oh God, free us from fear of man,
From cowardly pretence;
Cleanse out the dross and fear of loss,
And keep us off the fence.
Anon
Back copies of Waymarks Contender may be found at www.waymarksmagazine.blogspot.com
. Articles without credits are written
by me, Ron Smith. Contact waymarks@ntlworld.com
