|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland. Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net |
|
NEWS
FROM THE FRONT
|
JUNE 2003
"Be not afraid or dismayed by reason of this great multitude for the battle is not yours but God's" (2nd Chronicles 20v15)
Dear praying friends,
In this issue of NEWS FROM THE FRONT I think it is significant
that the 3 main articles in it all deal with errors that have been publicly
promoted by those who have professed to be Christian. It is clear that we are
living in days when the threat to the truth of The Gospel is as great
[if not greater] from within professing Christendom as it is from without the
professing Christian domain. I have been reminded of the Apostle Paul’s warning
to the elders at
Your servant for Christ
CECIL ANDREWS
“Partial”
Agreement to “Plenary” Inspiration
In the Collins Gem English Dictionary the word “partial”
is defined as “not complete” and the word “plenary” is
defined as “complete, without limitations”. Keeping these definitions in
mind let me explain that the title of this article relates to preachers and
teachers who I have listened to on tape and it sums up their view of the
Scriptures – namely they give “Partial” [‘not complete’] Agreement to
“Plenary” [‘complete, without limitations’] Inspiration. Are you
confused? Well, you should be, for as I see it, this view is an ‘oxymoron’
– it is a contradiction in terms. How can someone agree ‘not completely’ to
‘complete’ inspiration? No right-minded person could – but in the Bible we read
of people who are “double-minded” [James 1:8].
Let me first establish and confirm that the
preachers and teachers in question do appear to affirm their belief in “Plenary”
Inspiration. For a number of reasons I will not in this article be
identifying either the preachers or their church but let me quote firstly from
point 1 of the published Doctrinal Statement of the church that
they minister in. It reads as follows - ‘Basis
of Faith 1. The plenary inspiration, sole and all sufficiency of the Holy
Scriptures’. Then secondly, their church is a member of a religious
association that has its own Doctrinal Statement that they have to
agree to in order to be a member. In relation to ‘The Scriptures’ this
association affirms ‘The verbal inspiration and total inerrancy of the
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as originally given by God; their
sole sufficiency and final authority in all matters of faith and practice’.
The tapes that I listened to dealt with their
teaching in relation to God’s creation as we find it recorded in His inspired
Word in Genesis chapters 1 & 2. The assistant Pastor of the church
dealt with the ‘creation week’ and whilst he fully affirmed God
as the creator of everything, he rejected the teaching of Genesis 1 that
God created everything in 6 literal days and then rested on the 7th
day. The tape of the Senior Pastor who spoke the following week began with his
full and unreserved endorsement of what his assistant had taught the previous
week.
I want to deal now with the heart of this article,
which is to examine the reasons why the assistant Pastor rejected a literal
6-day creation and why in so doing he was clearly only giving “Partial”
Agreement to “Plenary” Inspiration.
There were two main ‘planks’ in the
assistant Pastor’s rejection of taking the 6 days as being ‘literal’.
Firstly he cited the problem, as he perceived it, of there being ‘light’
on day one and yet the ‘sun and moon’ were not created until day four.
Then secondly he referred to the problem, according to his
understanding of the scriptures, of how vegetation was created on day three [Genesis
1: 11-13] and that was of course 3 days before mankind was created on day
six [Genesis 1:26-31] and how this appeared then to be contradicted by Genesis
2:8-9 where, according to his understanding of the scriptures, vegetation
was in this account created after the creation of mankind.
I have to confess that it was with sheer disbelief
that I listened to these arguments being advanced as grounds for rejecting
belief in a literal 6-day creation. According to the thinking of this assistant
Pastor, our God is limited to having ‘light’ upon planet earth by the
availability or otherwise of His created sun.
In the book of Acts the Apostle Paul on
several occasions gave testimony to his conversion on the road to
These verses demonstrate clearly that our God can
shine ‘light’ upon the earth apart from the sun for this ‘light’
was “above the brightness of the sun” – in other words it did not
emanate from the sun. For there to be 3 days of “evening and morning”
before the creation of the sun and the moon on day four all that was needed was
for the earth to be revolving on its axis and for there to be a source of “light
from heaven” and as Paul’s testimony teaches us our God is able to provide
just such a source of ‘light’ to shine upon planet earth, apart from His
created sun. Can I also add that the God
of Heaven can not only cause "light" to shine upon the earth
without the aid of "the sun and moon" but He can also withhold
light from the earth even if they are in place as we read in Luke 23:44-45
"And it was about the sixth hour [noon] and there was a darkness
over all the earth until the ninth hour. And the sun was darkened and the veil
of the temple was rent in the midst".
Am I alone in my thinking on this matter? In his
book ‘The Answers Book’, Australian Ken Ham, the founder of Answers
in Genesis deals with this supposed problem of ‘light’ on day one and the
sun not being created until day four. Ken Ham wrote [pages 34-35] ‘The
sun is not needed for day and night. What is needed is light and a rotating
earth…Thus if we have light from one direction and a spinning Earth there can
be night and day’.
Was God just being a bit ‘quirky’ or
‘odd’ in His creative order or was there an Omniscient wisdom being exercised
in His creative plan. Ken Ham went on to write [page 35] ‘Perhaps one
reason God did it this way was to illustrate that the sun did not have the
priority in the creation that people have tended to give it. The sun did not
give birth to the earth as evolutionary theories postulate…Down through the
ages people, such as the Egyptians have worshipped the sun. God warned the
Israelites in Deuteronomy
Dr John C Whitcomb in his book ‘The Early
Earth’ wrote [page 72] ‘Another possible reason for this order of events
is that God by this means made it clear that the earth and life upon it do not
owe their existence to the greater light that rules the day, but rather to God
Himself. In other words God was perfectly able to create and take care of the
earth and even living things upon it without the help of the sun. Apart from
the Scriptures of course this would hardly be an obvious fact to mankind.
In ancient times (and even in some parts of the world today) great nations
actually worshiped the sun as God. In Egypt he was called Ra and in
Babylon he was known as Shamash…The creation account in Genesis
completely undermines all such blasphemies by putting the sun in a secondary
position in reference to the earth’.
Earlier on pages 70-71 Dr Whitcomb wrote
these telling words about ‘planet earth’ – ‘It was on this planet that God
placed man, created in His image, to exercise dominion and to worship Him. It
was to this planet that God came in the person of His Son nineteen hundred
years ago to become a permanent member of the human race and to die for human
sins upon a rugged cross. And it will be to this same planet that this great
God and Saviour will return again to establish His kingdom. Because of its
positional superiority in the spiritual order of things therefore the earth was
formed first and then the stellar systems’.
In his helpful Study Bible notes Pastor John
MacArthur informs us on page 13 ‘Israel first heard Genesis sometime
prior to crossing the Jordan river and entering the Promised Land (ca 1405 BC)’
and in his notes on the creation of the sun and moon [Genesis 1:15-19]
he writes on page 17 ‘It was God (not some other deity) who created the
lights.
Moving on to the second ‘plank’ of the
assistant Pastor’s rejection of a literal 6-day creation he taught that there
was a contradiction between the creation of ‘vegetation’ as found in Genesis
1 and 2. In Genesis 1 he stated that it took place on day 3,
before the creation of mankind, but according to his teaching, Genesis 2 taught
that ‘vegetation’ was created after mankind. The Spirit of God, my teacher
tells me that in Genesis 1:11-13 the universal
creation of these items [on “the earth” as mentioned in verses
11&12] took place on day 3, before the creation of mankind but Genesis
2:8-9 tells of the God of Heaven who "planted a garden eastward in
Eden" – this was “a garden” – it was a localised
'creation' and it differed from the initial universal
creation because in this “garden” God placed two very special and localised
trees namely "the tree of life" and one identified as "the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil".
Clearly the events described here relate to
different events in our history with Genesis 1 dealing with the universal
creation of vegetation etc on “the earth” BEFORE the creation of man and
Genesis 2 dealing with the localised planting of “a
garden” by God AFTER the creation of man. From verse 4 onwards in Genesis
2 God gives additional information concerning His 6 days of creation – He
does not give an alternative creation account. Ken Ham on page 38 of his
book ‘The Answers Book’ wrote ‘Genesis chapter 2 is not a different
account of creation – it is a more detailed account of the sixth day
of creation’.
On page151-152 of his book ‘The Lie’ Mr Ham also
wrote ‘Many people say that Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 are two
contradictory accounts of creation. In reality, it is easy to see that these
two accounts of creation are not contradictory but complementary. Genesis 1:1
to 2:4a is an account in chronological order [first, second, third etc] of the
days of creation. Genesis 2:4b begins the second account which is a more
detailed coverage of certain aspects of Genesis chapter 1. This second
account is not meant to be chronological of each day of creation. In fact
it is meant to give a lot more of the details – particularly in relation to
man and the garden – setting the scene for the fall of man in Genesis
chapter 3. The second account is extremely necessary for us to understand
what happened in Genesis chapter 3’.
Mr Ham also made this helpful statement concerning the Lord’s view
of these chapters ‘It should be noted that in Matthew 19:4-5 when Jesus
replied concerning the question relating to marriage, He actually quoted from
Genesis chapter 1 [verse 27] and Genesis chapter 2 [verse 24] in
His reply showing that He took them as complementary and authoritative’.
On page 18 of his Study Bible Pastor John
MacArthur wrote concerning Genesis 2:4-25 ‘Genesis 2:24-45 fills in
details, especially of the sixth day which were not included in Genesis 1:1 –
Genesis 2:3’.
The two ‘planks’ of the assistant
Pastor’s rejection of a literal 6-day creation as found in God’s inspired Word
are more akin to ‘trip-wires’ that will cause people to stumble
and say as the serpent in the garden said “Yea, hath God said” [Genesis
3:1].
I think the greatest Biblical rebuke and rejection
of the teaching of this assistant Pastor is found in Exodus 20:11. Here
we find Moses in the midst of delivering God’s 10 commandments to the Children
of Israel. The fourth commandment as found in Exodus 20:8-11 instructs
the people how to order their week of 7 days. They can work 6 days [verse 9]
but the 7th day is to be observed as the Sabbath of the Lord [verse
10]. To ‘hammer home’ [see Jeremiah 23:29] this teaching, the Lord
Himself cites a precedent and we find it recorded in verse 11 “For in six
days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is and rested
the seventh day”.
On page 29 of his book ‘The Answers Book’, Ken
Ham wrote ‘Because God is infinite in power and wisdom there’s no doubt
He could have created the universe and its contents in no time at all, or six
seconds, or six minutes, or six hours – after all with God nothing shall be
impossible (Luke 1:37). However the question to ask is ‘Why did God take so
long? Why as long as six days?’ The answer is also given in Exodus 20:11 [Mr
Ham had earlier quoted Exodus 31:15-17] and that answer is the basis of
the fourth commandment…The seven-day week has no basis outside of Scripture.
In this Old Testament passage God commands His people, Israel, to work for six
days and rest for one – that is why he deliberately took as long as six days to
create everything. He set the example for man. Our week is patterned after this
principle’.
Dr Whitcomb on page 30 of ‘The Early Earth’ wrote ‘While
it is of course true that God could have created the world in six billion years
or in six seconds (or in a split second) if He had chosen to do so, such
speculations are completely irrelevant in the face of the fourth commandment
which informs us that God, as a matter of fact, chose to create the world “in
six days” in order to provide a clear pattern for Israel’s work periods
and rest periods. The phrase “six days” (note the plural) can hardly be
figurative in such a context’.
Last year I was privileged to host the visit of Roger
Oakland, former teacher of evolution but now a Christian and convinced
creationist. In his book ‘The Evidence For Creation’ Roger wrote on
pages 22-23 ‘God further clarifies the length of a creation day in Exodus
20:8-11…From these verses we see God told man that he should work for six days,
then take a day of rest. God compared these days to the days of the creation
week. From the context of the scripture, it is obvious the length of the days
of the creation week are compared with days of normal duration…We can
conclude that the only reasonable explanation for the time period of the
creation week is a literal one. Creation took place in six literal days’.
I know that the assistant and senior Pastors
referred to in this article do not view their beliefs in these areas as being a
hindrance to them ‘preaching the gospel’ – I beg to differ. I have, I sincerely
hope, demonstrated that their evident “Partial” Agreement to “Plenary”
Inspiration identifies them as being “double-minded” and James
1:8 declares that such people are “unstable in all their ways”. I
believe also that for
anyone to reject the clear teaching of God's creation in 6 literal days is to
fail to "declare...all the counsel of God" [Acts
Perhaps the saddest and most worrying aspect of this
affair is that out of a listening audience of several hundred I understand that
only something like 3 people took issue with their false teaching – truly we
are I believe in the “perilous days” that Paul, under inspiration,
predicted in 2 Timothy 3:1. Let us all with much discernment “take
heed”!
[PART 2] WAS - C S LEWIS - TRULY
‘OUR GREATEST CHRISTIAN WRITER’?
David Cloud of ‘Way of Life
Literature’ in his 2001 report entitled ‘C S Lewis and Evangelicals Today’
wrote ‘The late British author C S Lewis [1898-1963] is extremely
popular with Evangelicals today. According to a “Christianity Today” reader’s
poll in 1998, Lewis was rated the most influential writer. Though Lewis died in
1963, sales of his books have risen to two million a year. In an article
commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lewis’s birth, J I Packer
called him our “patron saint”’. In the light of the many endorsements
given last year by local Pastor and well-known writer, Derick Bingham [as
detailed by myself in the New Year 2003 NEWS FROM THE FRONT] I have no doubt
that local sales of Lewis’s writings may well have been substantially boosted.
In my first article I wrote –
“recently I have taken time to look at what Lewis
wrote in his book ‘Mere Christianity’ and I have been so
shocked by what I have read that I was simply compelled to write this report,
particularly in the light of all the high-profile promotion being given to Lewis
by Derick Bingham”.
In this and ensuing articles I
plan to examine [DV] what Mr Lewis had to say in a number of crucial doctrinal
areas. The first doctrine that I wish to consider is that of REPENTANCE.
The first command of the Lord as recorded in Mark’s gospel is “Repent and
believe the gospel” [Mark
It is clear that REPENTANCE is
no ‘soft option’ and so a correct understanding of it is absolutely vital to
the eternal well being of every individual. In ‘Vine’s Expository
Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words’ we read the following under ‘REPENT,
REPENTANCE’ on page 525 –
‘signifies
“to change one’s mind or purpose,” always in the NT involving a change
for the better, an amendment, and always, except Luke 17:3-4, of
“repentance” from sin…In the NT the subject chiefly has reference to
“repentance” from sin and this change of mind involves both a turning from
sin and a turning to God. The parable of the Prodigal Son is an
outstanding illustration of this.’
In one of
my Daily devotional books [‘Footprints of Faith’; edited by Alan
from the
conviction that it has offended God’
Joseph
Addison.
I think
that quote captures well the essence of biblical REPENTANCE.
From God’s Word we also learn that
REPENTANCE is a gracious gift to undeserving sinners held in Satan’s
grip. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 2:24-26 “And the servant of the Lord must not
strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient. In meekness
instructing those that oppose him, if God perhaps will give them repentance
to the acknowledging of the truth, And that they may recover themselves out of
the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will”
Commenting on these verses Matthew
Henry wrote ‘Repentance is God’s gift…The same God who
gives us the discovery of the truth does by His grace bring us to the
acknowledging of it, otherwise our hearts would continue in rebellion
against it…When sinners repent, those who before were led captive by the
devil at his will come to be led into the glorious liberty of the children
of God and have their wills melted into the will of the Lord Jesus’. In
his Study Bible notes Pastor John MacArthur wrote on page 1878 – ‘All
true repentance is produced by God’s sovereign grace [Ephesians 2:7]…When God,
by grace, grants saving faith it includes the granting of repentance from sin.
Neither is a human work’.
The book ‘Mere Christianity’ written by C S Lewis is divided
into 3 ‘books’ and chapter 4 of Book 2 is
entitled ‘The
Perfect Penitent’. I want to quote some extracts from this chapter [pages
53-58] to help you understand how C S Lewis understood and articulated his view
of REPENTANCE. Referring to the Lord Jesus C S Lewis wrote – ‘What did He come to do?
Well, to teach of course; but as soon as you look into the New Testament or any
other Christian writing you will find they are constantly talking about
something different – about His death and His coming to life again. It is
obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies there. They
think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed. [Paul
under inspiration taught this – see I Timothy
In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 referred
to above, Paul sets out in the clearest of terms what constitutes “the
Gospel” – it is not a ‘theory’ – it is a
declaration of the historical reality of the death, burial and resurrection [“according
to the scriptures”] of the Lord Jesus Christ. If “the Gospel” is not
‘Christianity’
then why would the Lord Himself instruct His followers to “Go ye into
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” [Mark 16:15] and why
would Paul believe that he would actually be failing in his calling to be an
Apostle by declaring “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel” [1
Corinthians 9:16].
C S Lewis continues ‘We are told that Christ was
killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins and that by dying He
disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what
has to be believed…Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory…On the
other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who
has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not…when one person has
got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind
friend. Now what was the sort of “hole” man had got himself into? He had tried
to set up on his own…he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your
arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the
wrong track… - that is the only way out of our “hole.” This process of
surrender – this movement full speed astern – is what Christians call repentance.
Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than eating
humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have
been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing part of
yourself, undergoing a kind of death’. Perhaps you’re thinking to yourself
that this all sounds more or less in harmony with what God’s
Word teaches. Well – listen to what C S Lewis goes on to say – ‘In fact, it needs a good
man to repent. And here comes the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent [true]: only a good person can
repent perfectly [false]. The worse you are the more you need it [true] and the less you can do it [not true
as it is God’s gracious gift – Jeremiah prayed “Ah, Lord God…there is
nothing too hard for thee” and God responded “I am the Lord, the God of all
flesh; is there anything too hard for me?” (32:17 & 27)]…The only person who could
do it [repent]
perfectly would be a perfect person – and he would not need it. Remember,
this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is
not something God demands of you before He will take you back [Not true
– look again at the scriptural imperatives quoted on page 9]…He could let you off if He
chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like’ – what a
poisonous mix of ‘truth’ and ‘error’ these writings of Mr Lewis are.
C S Lewis continues ‘we now need God’s help in
order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all – to
surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die…But supposing God became a man –
suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God’s
nature in one person – then that person could help us. He could surrender His
will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it [repent!] perfectly because He was
God. You and I can go through this process [repentance!] only if God does it in us [true]; but God can do it only if
He becomes a man [not true – we read of people in the Old Testament
like David and Manasseh ‘repenting’ and that was before Christ’s incarnation]. Our attempts at this dying [our
repentance!] will
succeed only if we men share in God’s dying [God’s repentance!]…we cannot share God’s dying
unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man [normally
true – but remember Mr Lewis is here speaking in terms of ‘repentance’ and not
of Christ dying ‘sacrificially’]…That is the sense in which He pays our debt and
suffers for us what He himself need not suffer at all’.
Back in 1994 I had a series of
written exchanges with a strong supporter of the beliefs of Edward Cooney
[his followers are often referred to as ‘Cooneyites’]. In one
letter she wrote ‘Believing in a doctrine or doctrines about Jesus is not
salvation…With regard to the doctrine of the Atonement…it was the
sacrificial life of Christ, poured out unto death, even death on the cross,
in perfect obedience to the will of God. It is by this complete
sacrifice of his life that we are reconciled to God…I believe the penal
substitution theory [Christ atoningly suffering as a substitute for His
people on the Cross] is false doctrine’. I just wonder was C S Lewis whilst
living in
‘IN THE PIPELINE’
Under this heading in my last
newsletter I announced preliminary details of a visit by SHAUN WILLCOCK of
Bible Based Ministries based in Piertermaritzburg in
‘we are
pleased to announce the publication of our latest Gospel tract, entitled ‘Reincarnation
or Resurrection? – A message to Hindus’…the church of which I am the pastor
recently attempted to have 4000 of these tracts distributed…in a predominantly
Hindu suburb. We engaged the services of a distribution company…However only
400 had been distributed when the company was inundated with calls from angry
Hindus and sadly the company manager immediately put a stop to all further
distribution of the tracts… (a) Police spokesman…confirmed that the remarks
went against clauses in the constitution…Thus the proclamation of the Biblical
Gospel is essentially illegal in South Africa today…We ask our Christian
friends to pray earnestly for us…It has become increasingly difficult to openly
proclaim the Gospel of Christ’.
At most
midweek meetings Shaun will be speaking on the topic of
‘CONTENDING
FOR CHRIST IN
SCHEDULE
OF MEETINGS [DV]
FOR
SHAUN WILLCOCK
26
OCTOBER –
|
Day and
Date |
Time |
Location |
|
Sunday 26 October |
|
Crossgar Free Presbyterian |
|
Tuesday 28 October |
|
Ballymagerny Free
Presbyterian |
|
Wednesday 29 October |
|
Martyr’s Memorial Free
Presbyterian |
|
Thursday 30 October |
|
Ballymoney Free
Presbyterian |
|
*Friday 31 October |
|
Magherafelt Free
Presbyterian |
|
Sunday 2 November |
|
Princes Drive Evangelical
Fellowship |
|
Sunday 2 November |
|
Carr Baptist guest service |
|
Sunday 2 November |
|
Youth Rally in Martyr’s
Memorial |
|
*Monday 3 November |
|
Reformed Baptist Fraternal
@ Crumlin |
|
Monday 3 November |
|
Ballymena Free
Presbyterian |
|
Tuesday 4 November |
|
Ballygowan Free
Presbyterian |
|
Wednesday 5 November |
|
Young at Heart @ Carr
Baptist |
|
Wednesday 5 November |
|
Newtownards Free
Presbyterian |
|
Thursday 6 November |
|
Erne West Congregational |
|
Friday 7 November |
|
Kilskeery Free
Presbyterian |
|
Saturday 8 November |
|
WORD Mission near Moira |
|
Sunday 9 November |
|
|
|
Sunday 9 November |
|
Portavogie Free
Presbyterian |
* Provisional – to be
confirmed
THERE WILL
BE A ‘TAKE HEED’ BOOKSTALL
As I mentioned briefly in my last newsletter if anyone would have a ‘spare’ car that they would be willing to lend to Margaret and myself during the time of Shaun Willcock’s visit that would be very helpful. As I will be travelling extensively in our own car to meetings with Shaun, the ‘spare’ car would assist Margaret in getting to her work as a practice nurse in the Carryduff surgery.
In the May 2003
edition of Evangelical Times, Alan Howe wrote a timely
article that dealt with a topic that was given the following heading
A growing threat to the traditional view
of the destiny of the unevangelised.
In the course of the article Mr
Howe wrote ‘Inclusivists on the
other hand…argue that salvation, while found only in Christ, is actually accessible
to all men, including adherents of non-Christian religions who have no
knowledge of the gospel’.
I have made reference to what Mr
Howe wrote as it provides a suitable backdrop to an issue that I took up with Alf
McCreary, who is the Religious Affairs Correspondent of
the
Dear editor,
Yet again, Alf McCreary, who regularly makes public profession of some
attachment to Christianity, has shown that his beliefs are in stark
contradiction to what the Word of God plainly teaches. At the end of his
article on Military Chaplains [29 March] he wrote 'One of the most heart
rending pictures of the war so far was that of two young Iraqis lying dead in a
foxhole…They may have prayed to Allah for delivery but just like the young men
from the Christian West who have died in this horrendous conflict, they too
were children of the one God'. I would not for one moment take issue
with his description of this scene as being 'heart rending' but
God's Word, the Bible, certainly does take issue with his comments that
everyone involved in this conflict are 'children of the one God'.
As regards the claim that all are 'children of God' let me point
to the following scriptures. In Acts
As regards Mr McCreary's claim that the Christian God and Allah are 'the
one God' I'm sure that he, as a Presbyterian will be familiar with Chapter
2:3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith that states "In
the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power and
eternity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost". The
Bible reveals that this is the Christian God.
Concerning Allah, in the Koran, in Surah 4:171 we read 'Christians, do not transgress the bounds of your religion…and
do not say "Three"…God is but one God. God forbid that He should have
a son' and in Surah 18:4 readers are told 'admonish those who say that
God has begotten a son'. The Christian God and Allah are clearly not 'the one God' and
for those who die rejecting that Jesus Christ is God the Son the consequences
are eternally serious for He Himself said in John 14:6 "no man cometh
unto the Father but by me".
The Christian God declares in John 3:16 that Heaven or paradise will be
eternally populated only by those who trust alone in the redeeming work of
Christ at Calvary but the Koran in Surah 7:6 says that the works of each individual and not Christ's
work will determine their destiny 'On that day all shall be weighed with justice.
Those whose scales are heavy shall triumph [paradise] but those whose scales are
light shall lose their souls [hell]'.
Currently there is much talk of 'liberation'. The Christian God declares in John
Acts 4:12, and who is Jesus Christ.
Cecil Andrews - 'Take Heed' Ministries - Ballynahinch
* This last sentence was edited out by the Belfast Telegraph