Precious Jesus

"Afresh, precious, precious Jesus, I resign this body to You, for doing or suffering, for living or dying. Will You accept it? Will You use me for Your glory more than heretofore, that You may have some little return for all the benefits You have done to me? Oh, do grant this request; my heart longs for it, my spirit pleads for it; and "if You will, You can." You know the hot temptation of which I am the subject. Bring Your glory out of it, and keep me from the evil, and it shall be well." - Ruth Bryan

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Mr. Facing Both Ways

Even bad men praise consistency. When you know where to find a man, he has one good point at any rate; but a fellow who howls with the wolves and bleats with the sheep, gets nobody's praise, unless it be the devils. To carry two faces under one hat is, however, very common. Many roost with the poultry and go shares with Reynard the Fox. I read the other day an advertisement about reversible coats; the tailor who sells them must be making a fortune. Holding with the hares and hunting with the hounds is still in fashion.
You may trust some men as far as you can see them, but no further, for new company makes them new men. Like water, they boil or freeze according to the temperature. Some do this because thy have no principles; they are of the weathercock persuasion, and turn with the wind. Their mill grinds any grist that you bring to it if the ready money is forthcoming. And they go with every wind – north, south, east, west, north-east, north-west, south-east, south-west, nor'-nor' east, south-west-by-south, or any other in all the world. Like frogs they live on land or water, and are not at all particular which it is. They believe in the winning horse; and are to be bought by the dozen, like mackerel, but he who gives a penny for them wastes his money.
Others are shifty because they are so desperately fond of "good fellowship." "Hail fellow, well met," is their cry, be it traveller or highwayman. They are so good-natured that they must needs agree with everybody. They are cousins of Mr Anything. Their brains are in other people's heads. If they were at Rome they would kiss the pope's toe, but when they are at home they make themselves hoarse with shouting "No Popery." They admire the vicar of Bray, whose principle was to be the Vicar of Bray whether the Church was Protestant or Popish. They are mere timeservers, hoping that the times may serve them. They have no backbones; you may bend them like willow wands, backwards or forwards, whichever way you please. They try to be Jack-o'-bothsides, but deserve to be kicked like a football by both parties.
Beware of those who come from the town of Deceit – Mr. Facing-both-ways, Mr. Fair-speech and Mr. Two-tongues are neighbours who are best at a distance. Though they look one way, as boatmen do, they are pulling the other. They are false as the devil's promises, and as cruel as death and the grave.
Hypocrites of all sorts are abominable, and he who deals with them will rue it. He who tries to cheat the Lord will be quite ready to cheat his fellow men. Great cry generally means little wool.
Surely when the devil sees hypocrites at their little game, it must be as good as a play to him. He tempts genuine Christians, but he lets hypocrites alone, because he is sure of them. He need not shoot at lame ducks; his dog can pick them up any day.
Depend upon it friends, if a straight line will not pay, a crooked one won't. What is got by shuffling is very dangerous gain. It may give a moment's peace to wear a mask, but deception will come home to you and bring sorrow with it. Honesty is the best policy. If the lion's skin will not do, don't try the fox's. Let your face and hands, like the church clock, always tell how your inner works are going. Better be laughed at as Tom Tell-truth than be praised as Crafty Charlie. Plain dealing may bring us into trouble, but it is better than shuffling. At the least, the upright will have their reward, but for the double-minded to get to heaven is as impossible as for a man to swim the Atlantic with a mill-stone under each arm.
C.H. Spurgeon

Fundamentalism vs. Apostasy

Friday, November 17, 2017

Billy Graham's ecumenical past

I contacted Pastor Ralph Ovadal to get a copy of Rev. Ian Brown's booklet, 'Billy Graham, Custodian of the faith or figure of compromise? This is a fascinating read concerning the ecumenism of Graham; his subtlety did not escape some, and it didn't stop him either when confronted. 
I am posting an excerpt from chapter two, 'the love of devilish ecumenism', which outlines Graham's connections with modernists, infidels and a host of others who do not hold to the fundamental doctrines of the faith.  Here's that excerpt.....

In Graham’s committees and on his platforms there is always plenty of room for liberal and modernistic scholars who deny many of the fundamentals of the Christian faith and readily pour scorn upon the scriptures as containing grave errors, myths and a multitude of historical inaccuracies. This was not formerly the norm.
Writing to Dr. John R. Rice, the editor of the ‘sword of the Lord’ weekly evangelistic newspaper, Billy Graham assured: “Contrary to any rumors that are constantly floating about, we have never had a modernist on our Consecutive Committee, and we have never been sponsored by the council of churches in any city, except Shreveport and Greensboro, both small towns where the majority of the ministers are Evangelicals.  I do not think you will find any man who has sat under my ministry in any of these campaigns who would testify that I ever pulled a punch. I deeply appreciate your friendship and fellowship in the promotion of the cause of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ.”
Such a policy was reinforced by the contents of a letter which Dr. Graham wrote to Dr. Chester Tulga, dated 27th December, 1951.
“None of us will ever agree on everything, but we do agree on fundamentals. My separation and my theology have not veered one iota from that of W. B Riley” {cf. Pg 9}
However, Graham has most definitely moved from that stance since. Not only has he adapted his policy to tolerate modernism himself, he has shown himself to be intensely eager for their support.

To Luis Palau, another big-time American evangelist in the same mold as Graham, he stated, “Wherever you go, be sure you have the support of the major denominations. If you don’t you will always stay on the periphery” - Burlington County Times, 29 June, 1984

That piece of advice was given against a backdrop of thirty years experience of cooperating with modernists in his own campaigns.
As far back as the summer of 1954 Graham’s desire to harness the support of liberal churches was evident. At that time he rejected an invitation from a number of evangelical ministers led by Rev. Jack Wyrtzen to conduct a crusade in the city of New York. In rejecting their invitation, he stated that not enough churches were represented. About the same period, the predominately liberal Protestant Council of New York asked Billy Graham to come to their city under their flag. Some delay ensued…then the word was relayed that Graham had accepted their offer!
Many of those men who had willingly and enthusiastically lent their support to Graham in the past were horrified. They proceeded to expose the new, unscriptural alliance. The evangelist promptly defended his actions. The ‘Christian Beacon’ of April 4, 1957 quoted Graham as having remarked before the National Association of Evangelicals the previous day…
“Our New York Campaign has been challenged by some extremists on two points. First as to sponsorship, I would like to make myself clear. I intend to go anywhere, sponsored by anybody, to preach the gospel of Christ, if there are no strings attached to my message. I am sponsored by civic clubs, universities, ministerial associations and councils of churches all over the world. I intend to continue”.

Of course it was a case of ‘and continue, he did’. Dr. James Bennett expressed his feeling that Graham’s executive committee for the NY crusade "consists of 15 men of whom perhaps five may hold to the fundamentals of the faith, and the others are reputed not to be fundamental”--Christian Beacon, 24 April, 1957

On the NY Central Crusade committee sat men such as Ralph Sockman, the Methodist Modernist; John Sutherland Bonnell, pastor of Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church in NYC, a man who’d written an article published in ‘Look’ magazine, that stated it was NOT necessary for a Presbyterian Minister to believe in the virgin birth of Christ; and Henry P van Dusen, another modernist, from Union Theological Seminary. The last-mentioned was the author of a book, entitled ‘Liberal Theology’, in which he makes the comment about the Chalcedon Creed which defined the nature and person of the Lord Jesus: “to the logical mind, it sounds like distilled nonsense”.
Sockman and Van Dusen helped in the sponsoring of the Temple of Understanding in Washington D.C., an unholy mixture of Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity and Islam.

In the ‘Herald of His Coming’ Dec. 1956, Billy Graham referred to the modernists, liberals and infidels who had issued the invitation to him to come and conduct the crusade in NY as “godly men seeking to reach NY’s vast population with a testimony of the risen Christ”. That statement may be dismissed, at best, as false optimism, since many of those to whom Graham was referring either harbored serious doubts, or else scornfully denied the truth of Jesus’ resurrection!
Subsequent crusades followed the same pattern. With the precedent being openly set in the NY campaign for modernists and liberals to have an input into the organization and actual meetings of the crusades, further rallies established this change as policy.
San Francisco, in the fall of 1957, is an example. Support came from Bishop James A Pike, the Episcopalian Bishop of the diocese of California. Who exactly was Bishop Pike? Good question. The answer in none too cheering!
It was the ‘Los Angeles Herald and Express’ of Feb. 14, 1961 that carried the following comments about the persuasions of Pike.
'In a pastoral letter which he ordered to be read in all churches of his diocese Bishop Pike said: “Religious myth is one of the avenues of faith and has an important place in the communication of the Gospel.” He referred to the ‘myth’ of the garden of Eden which was used, he said, to explain a ‘complicated truth’. The virgin birth, he stated, is a “myth which churchmen should be free to accept or reject”.
In Oct. 1965 Pike visited England. At that time ‘The Guardian’ carried an article detailing his ministry. Extracts from that piece of prose are reproduced below…
Bishop James Pike has just arrived in England. It is likely that before he goes home to San Francisco next March he will have made the Church of England sit up and take notice, even though he has no great intention of trying to. He is here specifically for a sabbatical period of refreshment, mostly in Cambridge, but he finds it difficult to resist invitations to preach; and if he does this he can be sure that his sermons will be well marked. For Bishop Pike’s position in the American Episcopal Church corresponds roughly to that of the Bishop of Woolwich’s over here. He is the maverick who has cut loose from the mob. Within the past month he has been charged with, and cleared of heresy, and it has happened before. He is the Roman Catholic who became an agnostic before he was an Anglican. But he is quite ready to concede his theological unorthodoxy; he even defines it more bluntly than they do on the south bank of the Thames. He believes that the gospel narratives about the virgin birth are mythological and cannot be taken literally. He thinks the trinitarian doctrine is irrelevant, that it can only connote a committee God and that it is ‘now obviously out’. He questions the classical conception of Christ’s divinity, believing only that he was a man so open that God, the ground of being, was showing there. He is stumbling over the notion of bodily resurrection.”

Now, those are nothing other than the opinions of an outrageous infidel. Yet, at the invitation of Dr. Billy Graham, this man led in prayer at the 1957 San Francisco Crusade! Despicable!!" 
The Los Angeles Mission , conducted in 1963, witness the same influx of men in prominent positions who stood opposed to the basic tenants of the word of God and who made loud, unrepentant profession of their devilish modernism. Bishop Gerald Kennedy of the Methodist Church was chairman of the General Crusade Committee. He was also upon the Executive committee and was announced by Graham as one of the ten greatest Christian preachers in America. What were his credentials? A few quotations will be sufficient to construct a composite picture. In one of his books entitled 'God's good news', he denies the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ.
"The Council of Churches has reached a formula which seems to be satisfactory to the vast majority of Protestantism. Its statement is that we must think of Jesus as God. I am glad that so many Christians have come together in a great unity and I would not for one moment make it more difficult by raising stumbling blocks for this unity. I shall continue to urge further co-operation by my own denomination in this Council rather than less, but I am frank to confess that the statement does not please me and it seems far from satisfactory. I would much prefer to have it said that God was in Christ, for I believe the testimony of the New Testament taken as a whole is against the doctrine of the deity of Jesus, although I think it bears overwhelming witness to the divinity of Jesus. ...after all, what is divinity? Is it humanity at its best? can the divine and the human mix in one person?" 
March 25, 1954 saw the publication of Bishop Kennedy's complaints about the theme for the World Council at the Evanston meeting on "Christ, the Hope of the World", in the Christian Advocate'. Opposing the emphasis placed on the second coming of Christ, Kennedy wrote:"Stripped of the sophisticated theological jargon, they appear to be talking about the Second Coming, with a few notable exceptions, as if it were the crucial issue facing Christendom. With the exception of a few very narrow sects, this has not been a relevant issue in American Christianity for 25 years. But it does not seem to us that the Christian hope is a mere waiting for a return of our Lord. Is this to be the central theme dominating the Evanston Conference? God forbid...I shudder to contemplate the effect on the intelligent laymen of American churches of a great world wide conference of Christians discussing the Christian hope as if it were dependent on a second coming". pages 22-26

I will stop here, surely there's enough evidence in this short excerpt to show Billy Graham was ecumenical even back in the 50's. This heretic has broadened the mouth of hell! ANYONE who defends him is in grave danger, ANYONE who refuses to speak out against his heresies and ecumenical ways is in grave danger. May God uphold His elect and keep them from wolves like this man. 

"I like that word “against.” There are things that you and I are against. Yes, we are against them. I am against the pope. You remember that. I am against the World Council of Churches. I am against the National Council of Churches. I am against the great apostate denominations whether they be Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist or called by any other name. I am absolutely and totally against them from the top of my head to my big toe. I am against them, every bit of me against them. And I want to tell you, brethren, when you go to a little country town to start a church you let people know you are against something. You let them know you haven’t come as a sob voiced sissy to be another pulpit ornament two times on Sunday, that you are not a  soft pedaling, fence straddling cream puff pie preacher, that you are a man of God with fire in your belly and you are going to preach the Word with power.
I had a woman came to me some time ago. She said to me, “I don’t like your church. You are always battling. There is always a scrap, a fight on. You are always fighting.” She says, “In our church we have perfect peace.” I said, “Madam, I have been in many a graveyard. There’s plenty of peace there, the peace of the dead. You can have that. We don’t want the peace of the dead. We want to be in the battle for the Lord.” And the Lord declared war upon the devil. Apostasy is the offspring of hell, the begotten of the pit. That’s what apostasy is. That’s why it hates the blessed Son of God, challenges the deity of my Savior and the sinless purity of the incarnate Christ. So it is of the devil. It is begotten of the pit, apostasy. ...  I know preachers and when Billy Graham comes to town they say, “Well, I am not going to say anything.” Well, Billy Graham came to my town and he preached in the big Presbyterian Church that our congregation originally came out of and I put a huge advert in the press and I preached on him. Both services on the Lord’s Day I called his number, told the people. And people said of me, “You’ll hurt yourself.” I said, “I don’t care whether I hurt myself. I am not going to let the Lord be hurt. No matter about...” If you are looking, my friend, to yourself you will never get anywhere. You look to the Lord. Honor the Lord and the Lord will honor you. But if I had only started on preaching on Billy Graham when he came to town people would have been confused. But I have been preaching against Billy Graham for years and I have my people well taught. If he comes to Belfast, I’m telling you, he will be in trouble because the people know all about him and his romanizing and his apostatizing and his backsliding and his compromise. Tell the people. Let them know. Yeah, let the people know. Don’t run around whispering in their ears. What you have heard in secret, shout from the housetop. That’s what the Lord says. Make no apology. Don’t clear your throat and blow your nose and say, “I’m terribly sorry. I have to say these things.” Nobody has any time for a man that makes apologies for what he is saying. Say, “I’ll not apologize. I’ll not take anything back I am going to say. This is what I am going to say and if my speech could be a thunderbolt and every word a lightning stroke, glory to God, let it be!” That’s the way you preach. Get at it. Get at it. It is not pleasant language. It is Holy Ghost language and I pray every day that God will give me Holy Ghost language in my preaching like the prophets of old, what men they were. I wish Elijah was around today. I would love to be with Elijah when he would be challenging the prophets of Baal. Man, he really went. And he mocked them, too. Imagine mocking them. Oh, if you did that today these lovey-dovey crowd would say, “That’s not Christ like to mock them.” Let me tell you something. The only standard of Christ likeness is revealed in the New Testament. Christ likeness is not what some old apostate professor thinks Christ was like. Christ likeness is what God says about his Son. And when the Lord went after the apostates in his day he didn’t say, “Lovely liars, delightful serpents, beautiful sepulchres.” No, sir, he didn’t preach like that. I want to be like my Lord. Just let me come up to the Lord’s standard. You know, the way the Lord started his ministry? He started his ministry by cleansing the temple. He went into the temple with a whip and he scourged them. And he overthrew the money changers and he let all the pigeons off to fly around the temple court. And he cleared them out. Tell you, “Oh, you should deal with them in love.” I’ll tell you what love is. True love “rejoiceth not in iniquity.” That’s true love. It doesn’t rejoice. It rejoices in the truth. It’s a devilish thing, a damnable thing and it has got to be fought with all our heart and all our soul and all our mind. Oh to be a pure son of Levi, to stand outside the camp with the Lord in this evil day. “Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach.”

" Ian Paisley , from

Thursday, November 16, 2017

Only ONE Gospel

The accursed gospel of 'free will, decisionism, works-based, invitation style' salvation is wildly popular and defended staunchly by many 'Christians'. It's roots can be traced back to Pelagius, a heretic from the 5th century-

Billy and Franklin Graham both proclaim an accursed gospel, using invitation style methods made popular by Charles Finney, one of Graham's 'heroes' {}. This same gospel is powerless to save sinners, so why do so many defend it and those who preach it?!? Where is the boldness needed to stand against error? Non-confrontational Christians are the very reason this heresy has grown like a cancer. How can one be a Christian and be indifferent towards God's truth? You can't.

Here is a message on this very subject by Rev. Ian Brown, there truly is only ONE gospel ....

Sunday, November 12, 2017

A hill to die on

Standing for the gospel of grace, by Rev. Ian Brown...


We all know the verses that tell us to "watch", sadly too many take this as a simple admonition or suggestion, a 'take-it-or-leave-it' thing, and some simply dismiss it. But it is a command to all believers. Matt. 24:42 & 25:13; Mark 13:33; and Luke 21:36 all tell us to "watch" with the definition being to stay awake! It's the same word used by the Lord to His disciples as He prayed alone in the Garden of Gethsemane when He found them asleep (Matt. 26:43 & Mark 13:40). In Matt. 26:41 the Lord said to Peter: "The spirit indeed is willing , but the flesh is weak." Is not the same true of us today? The only honest answer is "yes." "Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming." Admittedly, it is a struggle to maintain this watchfulness and to stay awake concerning our Lord's coming.

There may be many factors contributing to our slumber in this matter. There is one that is stark and subtle at the same time. It goes far beyond "date setting" into the realm of the highly intricate and mostly convoluted "criteria setting" such as "X" must take place before "Y" setting in motion "Z" which is the 'last necessary event' to "allow" the return of the Lord Jesus. Nearly all of these fantasy scenarios have dominionism, in one form or another, at the root. We are given scant such "criteria" throughout the Scriptures, perhaps the main one being "As in the days of Noah"; but the case would not be too difficult to make that the "days of Noah" have been with us for millennia. Delving into just one of these fantasies is enough to cause a deep spiritual sleep with all of it's incumbent proof-texting, twisted logic, and endless conjecture beyond Scripture. The authors of such nonsense rarely, if ever, consider Scripture presented that contradicts their pet and will reject all attempts at reproof and/or correction, not matter how idiotic their fantasy may be. When a nerve is struck, they usually ignore the verses presented and seek to demean the one that dared to challenge them. This is a common trait of all false prophets, no matter what they are hawking today. Most of these spurious ideas relating to the Second Advent end up in the same boat, all rowing the same way. But is such an exercise proper? I think not.

The plain text of Matt.24:36 should set to rest the convulsions of those seeking a name for themselves who perfectly (in their mind) describe the events leading up to and the very moment of our Lord's return. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." The Words of the Lord Jesus are not negotiable, nor subject to revision, nor are they to be ignored by ego-driven men, but this is exactly what evil men attempt to do every day on every front. Mark records an even bigger conundrum for these 'ignorers of Scripture' to ponder in Mark 13:32 "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." If the Son of God does not know when He is coming back, how is it possible for even the most arrogant of men to know? Could it be lack of trust (in the Lord and His Word) that motivates men to attempt to explain away this verse in order to fit their pet doctrine? No doubt.

Man has lusted (and still does) for everything forbidden beginning in the Garden of Eden. Full knowledge of the moment of our Lord's return and all the days prior to that moment have been forbidden to us. We are not told the extent of what was revealed to Daniel except for what is recorded by him. Some of that knowledge has been forbidden to world (Dan. 12:4) and will remain as such 'sealed in the book until the time of the end.' Dan. 12:8 & 9 "Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said, 'My lord, what shall be the end of these things?' And he said, 'Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.'" It seems that we have prophets greater and more beloved than Daniel in our midst today. Who knew? Lucky us! Likewise, John was told to seal up the 'seven thunders' in Rev. 10:4. But such is not sufficient for today's theological wonks and religious pundits who must, for ego's sake, be the one with fresh "revelation" and new knowledge of the age old question: "When is the Lord coming." They are all useless thugs, selling their books and  their faces to millions who love their lies for, a like amount of dollars. They have turned themselves into scoffers and mockers.

Is there  a solution? Absolutely! WATCH! Watch for Him, just like Paul did some 2000 years ago. Heb. 9:28; 1 Cor. 1:7; and Phil. 3:20 all tell us to 'eagerly wait' for our Lord to return. Do not allow yourself to be lulled to sleep by all the different and conflicting scenarios concerning our Lord's return; it only dampens the Hope and expectation of meeting the Lord in the air. The next major event in every believer's life will be when he/she stands before the Lord. The anticipation of that moment should be primary in the heart of all those that love His appearing. Isn't it enough to know that we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is? 1 John 3:1-3. "If you love Me, keep My commandments."

Thank you, Lord Jesus, for the Hope that whether we die or meet You in the air, we shall be like You and forevermore with You. Amen!