Wednesday, April 09, 2014
Penfold’s blasphemy concerning the blood of Christ. As placed on the Hebron Gospel Hall, Bicester, website, demonstrating this to be the official teaching of that assembly.
“The Bible clearly and repeatedly refers to the physical body of Christ. It was a normal body of flesh and blood, in every respect the same as every other human body, apart from sin. Based on 1 Pet 1:18-19 some erroneously teach that Christ’s blood was not human but was physically eternal. They claim that Jesus took all of His blood back to heaven with Him. These verses do not actually say that the blood of Christ was ‘incorruptible’.[my highlighting- RS] True, it is precious and eternally efficacious for sin, having supreme infinite value spiritually – but is never said to be physically eternal. Acts 20:28 says the blood is ‘God’s’ but only in the sense that Christ is God, not that His blood was non-human. Red blood cells, which have no nucleus, are continually produced in the bone marrow of large bones at a rate of 2 million per second. They die within a lifespan of about 120 days. The Lord’s true humanity demands that His blood had to be replaced, as did His skin (about every 30 days), just as in all other humans. If the Lord’s blood never ‘died’, He would have had the same red blood cells from Bethlehem to Calvary which implies a totally inactive bone marrow. However, since He was truly human, His bone marrow would daily replace His dead blood cells. All other explanations lead to a non-human conclusion. The Saviour’s deciduous teeth, His hair, His nails and His spittle all passed from Him in the normal way without in any way compromising His holy sinless person. True, His body was incorruptible in the grave (Psa 16:10), but the discharges from that body were never ‘incorruptible’ during His life. Heb 9:12 says Christ entered into heaven by His blood (dia), not with His blood; that is, by virtue of His blood, not literally carrying it.”
1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye knowG1492 thatG3754 ye were notG3756 redeemedG3084 with corruptible things,G5349 as silverG694 andG2228 gold,G5553 fromG1537 yourG5216 vainG3152 conversationG391 received by tradition from your fathers;G3970
1Pe 1:19 ButG235 with the preciousG5093 bloodG129 of Christ,G5547 asG5613 of a lambG286 without blemishG299 andG2532 without spot:G784
V18 gives assurance that redemption was not made with things that are corruptible. Penfold’s words are therefore mischievous and dishonest. I personally know of nobody, apart from I Paisley, who believes the blood of Christ not to be human. The Lord is now a Man in heaven. He is human, with a physically eternal body. Penfold implies this cannot be so. Nothing human can be physically eternal. Penfold denies the physical resurrection and ascension of Christ. Note Luke 24: 39. a spirt hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have.
The Greek word alla, “But” means “contrariwise”. Opposite to that which is corruptible, the precious blood of Christ is therefore shown to be incorruptible, then, now, and eternally. If these plain verses do not mean what they say, then nothing in the Bible is trustworthy. Mr Penfold does not own to a trustworthy Bible. If he does, perhaps he will care to name it.
Penfold’s dissection of the body of the Lord is foul and nauseating. He does not explain how something that no longer exists can be eternally efficacious.
Monday, April 07, 2014
D Newell, in the April 2014 issue of Believer’s Magazine, urges readers to add E H Banroft’s Christian Theology to their library.
Bancroft taught the peccability of Christ; that Christ was capable of sinning.
Emery H. Bancroft, Elemental Theology (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1977), pg. 136; also Everett F. Harrison, A Short Life of Christ (Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), pp. 80-81; Mark G. Cambron, Bible Doctrines (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1954), pg. 86.
Is D Newell ignorant of the content of the books he recommends? Or does he believe that Christ did have a fallen human nature when He became incarnate? It must be one or the other.
M Penfold taught that Christ had a fallen human nature on his website, Webtruth.org.
After attention was drawn to this heresy, it was removed from his website. This does not mean that Penfold no longer believes this heresy. On the same website Penfold wrote
True, His body was incorruptible in the grave(Psalm 16: 10) but the discharges from that body were never ‘incorruptible’ during His life. Heb. 9: 12 says Christ entered into heaven by His blood (dia), not with His blood; that is, by virtue of His blood, not literally carrying it
Penfold holds to the blasphemous doctrine that the blood of Christ was corruptible. His website is well named, Webtruth. Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!
Michael Penfold once sold good Christian literature. This was later reduced to the sale of greetings cards and teddy bears,etc, but they did often have Scripture verses on them.
Now we find nothing of any spiritual value in his current catalogue.Rather the converse! On napkins and notebooks we find these injunctions:
Do what you love.
Your future is created by what you do today.
Create your own happiness.
Follow your heart.
Raise your glass.
Do what you love.
Love what you do.
Life is about creating yourself.
M Penfold preaches among the Brethren. What he preaches appears to be very confused.
Friday, March 28, 2014
THIS WEEK’S QUOTE
Found on David Cloud's Friday Church News. wayoflife.org
“I pray that I may be able to preach with such
convicting power that my people will sweat! I
do not want them to leave my services feeling
good. The last thing I want to do is to give
them some kind of religious tranquilizer--and
let them go to hell in their relaxation. ... The
messages preached in our churches should
make backslidden Christians sweat. And if I
achieve that objective when I preach, I thank
God with all my heart, no matter what people
think of me. Jesus is Victor! ... Lord, help me to
preach with boldness--not concerned with
‘what people think of me.’ Amen”
Thank God this fellow, Tozer, was not with the Brethen, eh? We would soon have given him the boot. -RS
Tuesday, March 11, 2014
Few outside the fold of the Brethren Movement will have heard of the magazine, Truth and Tidings. However in the March, 2014 issue there is a promo, setting out the story of Brethrenism in the Republic of Ireland. Below is an excerpt:
The population, then as now, was largely Roman Catholic, though there was a significant Protestant minority, mostly adherents of the influential Anglican state church. In Dublin John Nelson Darby emerged, a Trinity College Dublin graduate, barrister, linguist, and practising Anglican clergyman.
Darby, "with high connections and gentlemanly lineage," though of humble manners was easily accepted as part of the protestant society. He pursued an evangelical path in his parish and gathered with those of like mind to study the Scriptures. Soon he was seen as a leader among other able scholars.
Spiritual advances gained during the 1830s that we appreciate today include: the renunciation of clerisy [defined as “learned persons as a class: intelligentsia” To deny such among the Brethren is a denial of the truth ̶ R.S.] starting with Darby's resignation from ordained ministry, an understanding of fundamental prophetic topics, and an insistence on the principle of assembly separation from the state and politics. He was also the author of Christ-centered hymns that stood the test of time.
Little companies of believers sprang up in Ireland, England, and elsewhere, though these did not survive well in southern Ireland Church History-Recovery in Ireland; Ernest Dover. T and T March 2014
J N Darby is the acknowledged founder of the Brethren Movement. He was not a church planter. He went where there were those seceding from dead churches and forming new fellowships, in order to bring them under his umbrella of linked assemblies.
There is no evidence of Darby experiencing a biblical conversion. I have searched for many years for documentation of his conversion. The nearest I found was under Stem Publishing:-
On one occasion, however, in conversation upon deep spiritual experiences with his friend, Mr. William Kelly, he remarked that for seven years he had once practically lived in the 88th Psalm, his only ray of light being in the opening words, "O LORD GOD of my salvation.
In the case of Darby the ray of light that had been, as he said, his only glimmer of spiritual hope during the "dark night" of the seven years, ushered him at last into the full blaze of day as he was brought into the knowledge of peace with GOD, and so became filled with the joy of GOD's salvation.
How this came to pass, we are not told. This certainly does not describe a biblical conversion. Scofield wrote, “ …. After a prolonged spiritual struggle leading to his conversion.” There is no mention of repentance and faith in Christ.
Darby rejected Believer’s Baptism as revealed in the New Testament. He stumbled at the first step of obedience along the Christian path. He invented his own theory of baptism which required children of Darby’s followers, at the age of twelve.to be baptised at home in the bath.
Darby, an adherent of Reformed Theology to the end, taught that “the Church is in ruins.” But we read in Col. 1: 24 ,…. for his body’s sake, which is the church . Thus Darby implied the body of Christ was no more than a heap of rubble.
We understand that the two Brethren assemblies mentioned by Mr Dover still follow Darby teaching.
It may be due to Darby’s influence that repentance and conversion are generally held in low esteem among the Brethren. It is not necessary to be converted to become a member of a local Brethren assembly.
I had an abusive email from a member of one of these two assemblies who took exception to my exposure of false teaching. to read it, click see my mailbag
Monday, February 17, 2014
This question is asked in the Believer’s Magazine Question Box (January 2014)
Is it in order for a Christian to carry an organ donor card to “give others the gift of life” (National Health Service quote.
I unashamedly carry a Donor card. It would be hypocritical for me not to. My daughter had a kidney transplant when she was a teenager and she is still with us alive and well.
Dr D West ventures to offer his opinion that “it would be unwise to promise to give bodily organs to another in the event of an untimely death. We assume therefore that it would not be unwise in the event of a timely death.
My daughter’s transplant was available because of the death of a young man in a road accident. Dr West’s verdict is that she should have been left to die when she became ill in 1985. He thinks she has no right to life. Such a view is monstrous, disgusting, and deeply hurtful.
My donor card says nothing about “gift to life” and there is nothing on it suggesting I have made a promise by signing it. I have merely signed to say I want to offer my organs for transplant. This too depends entirely on their suitability at the time.
Dr West quotes from Ps. 139: 14 that we are fearfully and wonderfully made. This seems to have no bearing on the subject of transplants. And does this not also apply to the unconverted? Dr West points out that the believer’s body is precious to God. He gives no Scripture to substantiate this. Why does he not include the unbeliever’s body in his statement. The unbeliever too must be resurrected bodily in a coming day.
Dr West appears to have concocted a whimsical god. The body is precious but nature has arranged for the worms to eat it up. Perhaps West holds to some religious superstition that a transplant will impact upon the believer at the rapture. But believers have been dying for millennia. Their bodies have returned to dust to be eaten by worms and cows. Worms and cows then die and the cycle is repeated. Over and over again. I firmly believe in and eagerly anticipate the Rapture. God will work the miracle that will raise the body that died and reconstitute it in risen form.
Until then, God in His wisdom has made it possible for lives which are precious to Him to be preserved through transplants.
Dr West has severely exceeded his remit, in the BM magazine and if the editor is in agreement with him, shame on him also. Some simple believers regard Dr West as speaking as the oracles of God. They are mistaken. He has given his opinion, which the discerning believer will reject.