We or at least most of us have already heard or even know the Bible verse John 3:16 but how many know verse 17, and perhaps verse 18?

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”

John 3:17-18 “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Simple believe on Jesus and be saved! Saved from what? A condemnation for refusing the greatest gift ever given to man and choosing to go our own ways! Open your eyes, look at this topsy-turvy world do you really think it has the answers for what is right or wrong, true or false, good or evil and so on? I certainly do not and at every turn our dependence on ourselves and our own strength fails us – maybe not immediately but it is always inevitable everything crumbles into ruin. Even the Universe all around us, Sun, Moon and Stars do not equate to a drop in the bucket to just how big it is and we are completely without control to what fate could destroy us in a flash from the sky originating in space.

So why is it so hard to swallow that there really is something bigger than us? Something we were made a part of and something that truly gives us purpose? Open your eyes! The simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the Creator of the Universe reaching out to us who He created in His image. Are you one of His children? Do you know what it means to be saved?

Below is an excerpt from the famous Preacher Charles Haddon Spurgeon from 1860 and it is just as relevant today in 2018 as it was 158 years ago and I hope it acts as a wake-up call to some sleepy lost souls!

“Have I a man here who declares that he is pardoned and yet indulges in the sins which he pretends are forgiven? Sir, you have either deceived yourself, or else you are uttering what you know is untrue! He who is forgiven hates sin! We cannot be washed clean if we still persist in living up to our neck in filth. It cannot be possible that a man is pardoned while he still continues to wallow in abominable sin. “O yes,” but he says, “I am no legalist! I believe the Grace of God has made me clean, though I do go on in sin.” Sir, it is clear you are a legalist, but I will tell you what else you are—you are no child of God; you are no Christian; for the Christian is a man who uniformly hates sin! There never was a Believer who loved iniquity—such a strange thing as a pardoned sinner who still loves to be in rebellion against his God. “Yes,” but I hear another say, “Sir, that may be true; but I do not profess to be pardoned in any such way as you speak of. I believe my sins to be so small and little; that I have no need to go seeking mercy. Or if I seek it, I do not expect that I shall find it here. I dare say I shall fare as well as the best when I go into another world.” Poor fool! Poor fool! You are condemned already! The sentence of God has gone out against you— “Whoever believes not on the Son of God is condemned because he believes not.” And yet you, when your sentence is written out and your death-knell, perhaps tolling now, say your sins are little? They are so great, Sir, that the fires of Hell shall never expiate them and your own misery, in soul and body forever, shall never be a full equivalent for the iniquity you have committed against God! And so you don’t want to know that you are forgiven; you are content to take your chance with the rest? A chance, indeed, it is! But know, Sir, I feel so differently in my heart from you in that respect, that had I a doubt at this time about my sins being forgiven, I could not give sleep to my eyes, nor slumber to my eyelids, till I was assured that I had received God’s love in my heart. If at any time a doubt crosses my soul, I am the most wretched of beings! For surely, this is like light to the eyes, like friendship to the spirit, like drink to the thirsty and bread to the hungry—to know one’s self forgiven! Go out of this hall and say, “I am walking over the mouth of Hell and may slip in at any moment; I am hanging over Hell by a single hair and into a flame may be speedily hurled, yet I do not care whether I am damned or not.” Say it right out in broad English—say you are in doubt as to whether you shall go to Heaven or Hell—say, if you must go home today and in your upper chamber lie down on your narrow bed to die—say you are not sure whether you shall see the face of your God with acceptance and yet you are content! Speak like an honest man and like a fool, for such language is only the raving of a madman and a fool!

     Oh, I beseech you, never be content until you have sought and found a Savior! Yes, and until you are sure you have found Him, do not be happy with a, “perhaps,” or a, “maybe.” Do not rest your soul on chances, but make sure work for eternity. I bid you, Sirs, by the solemnities of eternity, by the fires of Hell, and by the joys of Heaven—get your foot on a Rock and know it is there!

Do not make guesswork of it. Put it beyond all chance. O dying Sinner! Do not let it be a question with you whether you shall be saved or whether you shall be damned! O frail Man, tottering on the brink of the grave—do not let it be a matter of uncertainty as to whether Heaven shall receive you, or Hell engulf you! Be sure of it one way or the other. If you can make your bed in Hell; if you can endure the everlasting burning; if you can suffer the anger of God when He shall tear you in pieces like a lion, then go on in your folly!
But if you would have a portion among them who are sanctified; if you would see the face of Christ and walk the golden streets—be sure that you are in Christ—be certain that you are trusting Him and be not satisfied till that is put beyond all question, beyond all argument, and all contention!”  (Bold or Italics emphasis mine)

The New Park Street Pulpit 1, Volume 6, www.spurgeongems.org – For Spurgeon Sermons online A SENSE OF PARDONED SIN, NO. 316, MAY 20, 1860, C. H. SPURGEON, AT EXETER, HALL, STRAND

Audio of sermon here: Sense of Pardoned Sin, A
PDF of the entire sermon here: #316 – A Sense of Pardoned Sin

While there is no argument as to the definition of figurative or symbolic language, there is a clear difference between common grammatical error in the proper use of the terms, i.e. the correct term for the illustration given versus intentional misapplication of figurative terms for the purpose of creating a connection in which neither part has any relation, and also to separate a relation that IS clearly connected. A person who is quite skilled at intentional misapplication could make great use of it through the process known as eisegesis—an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

C. I. Scofield was guilty more often than not of eisegesic intentional misapplication, yet, he and his notes have acquired a celebrity status to the degree he is absolved of any personal wrong doing in his life. Despite the ample documentation proving the allegations for which there has been no documentation of his repentance, his notes became the final authority (even more so since his death in 1921). The Scofield Study Bible has been and continues to be used in churches, Bible Colleges and Universities to teach among other erroneous things, such as dispensationalism, the rapture and seven-year tribulation. For some, the defense of his notes, or the eschatological teaching within them is so dogmatic, lack of salvation or the disbelief of Christ’s return is implied if you don’t agree with them. Some have even gone so far as to sever relationships.

“One argument of defense was that Scofield did not write the notes. It is irrelevant how much of the notes are penned by Scofield’s hand. He is, on the one hand, having credit and fame bestowed upon him for them, but on the other hand, when issues of error arise he is defended as a nonparticipant. Scofield claimed thirty years of study and pastoral duty as well as being the editor of the notes. He approved of everything before it went to print. He also boasts of a,

“…wide circle of learned and spiritual brethren in Europe and America to whose labours he is indebted for suggestions of inestimable value.” Scofield Study Bible, Pocket Edition, page iv, 3rd paragraph.

They are highly educated people who should be well aware of the rules of English and the proper use of figurative terms, which brings us back to the original point of intentional misapplication.

To argue a case of misapplication by just spelling out a definition is as pointless as comparing apples to oranges. For example, if I said “the soup bone has been simmering for an hour” and “the dog’s bone is buried in the back yard” and the two sentences are related because they both speak of bones, you would probably give me a puzzled look as to how I came to that conclusion. Then someone comes to my defense by simply giving the definition of a bone. Would that convince you the two are related? Of course not, but that is what some have done with Scofield’s claim on all the “types” and figurative terms he says are connected as proof there is a rapture and seven-year tribulation. He also separates what should be connected partly because of the lack of similar wording, but mostly because it was necessary for his interpretation to be accepted. In order to win over as many as he could to his side of the fence, consistency of his view had to be maintained one way or another.

Ultimately, Scofield and friends manipulated the meanings and parts of speech to suit their teaching of eschatology and gain support of their version. In doing this, the chance was greater that the recipients of the teaching, by whatever means, would believe truth was in their grasp.

Some have said, “I never owned a Scofield Bible.” I can say, “I never owned a McGuffey Reader,” but it was the first to teach the phonics method in learning to read, which is how kids continue to learn to read today.

A person does not have to own a Scofield Bible to be taught the rapture/tribulation false doctrine contained in the notes.

Unfortunately, contrary to their belief, the acceptance of Scofield’s interpretation means students, pastors, teachers, etc., have also been manipulated and are continuing to teach the error in blind faith. Suffice it to say, if any other Bible version contains commentary supporting the rapture, etc., the original source from which they gleaned that teaching is Scofield’s Bible.

For more on Scofield and his notes click link below:

Is God’s Word Taking a Back Seat to Scofield’s?

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord,

so gross in its impudence, that the most short-sighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil.

It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them.

From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the Church. If it is a Christian work why did not Christ speak of it? “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.”

That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, “and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.” No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him…

Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the Church to the world? “Ye are the salt,” not the sugar candy — something the world will spit out, not swallow…

I do not hear [Jesus] say, “Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it.

Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow!” Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement…

Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the Church met them half-way, speak and testify.

Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God’s link in the chain of their conversion, stand up! There are none to answer.

The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today’s ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root.

The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire.

Archibald Brown1

Endnotes

1. The above has been attributed to Charles Spurgeon but this quote is actually from a sermon called The Devil’s Mission of Amusement: The Church’s Task – Entertainment or Evangelization? by Archibald Brown, who was a student of Spurgeon. ↩

Copied from: http://apprising.org/2012/12/11/feeding-sheep-or-amusing-goats/

Link to Pulpit and Pen’s article:

Faith Based Movies Intending to Use More F-Bombs, Profanity

Excerpt:
“Oh, and they’re going to start using more swear words. There’s that.
According to Folmar, they “don’t want to play within the constraints of Christian moviemaking.” This includes producing movies with dozens and dozens of profane words, including some of the worst variety. Folmar explains…”

To read this article go to: http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/10/02/faith-based-movies-intending-to-use-more-f-bombs-profanity/

To any Christian reading, there is NO RATIONALE of this nature that is Biblical – it is sin and the ends do not justify the means! The Bible speaks plainly on this matter:

1 Timothy 1:9-10 “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;”

There is no debate here, no way to justify the use of trash talk, simple as that! Thank you Pulpit & Pen for showing what is going on! I know of others in what are supposed to be Christian publishers of books using much of the same thinking.

Surprising news? Hank Hanegraaff has become Greek Orthodox? The Pulpit and Pen brought us this well done article today to show us Mr. Hanegraaff has flown the coop but I am thinking he is just showing the bad fruit that had been revealed long ago. First the latest,

The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hanegraaff, Leaves the Christian Faith?

Here’s just a little of the history going back more than a decade from the Biblical Discernment site’s materials found here:

Christian Research Institute (CRI) Ecumenical Fellowship With Rome

Excerpts:
On 8/12/93, Hank Hanegraaff boldly stated, “We believe that Roman Catholicism is foundationally Christian.” The Bible Answerman program that day had been devoted to the defense of Catholicism. Whether Catholicism is or is not a cult is not the main issue, but its false gospel. Yet, CRI spends a large part of its time trying to prove that Catholicism is not a cult. CRI needs to state clearly that Rome’s counterfeit gospel is sending hundreds of millions to hell. Instead, CRI has defended Catholicism on radio and in its Journal, while its “criticism” has been so vague as to leave one wondering what was meant. For example, on one Bible Answerman program, Catholic apologist Scott Hahn was given free rein to promote Catholicism, defend his conversion to it, and to defend it from callers’ objections without any rebuttal from CRI to his false statements! The average listener would have had to conclude that Roman Catholicism is merely another “Christian” denomination (10/93, The Berean Call). [And this is exactly how it is perceived. In a 2/94 letter-to-the-editor of the Catholic Answers magazine, This Rock, a writer credits CRI for being instrumental in bringing him to the Roman Catholic Church; i.e., he thanks CRI for opening his eyes “to the truths of Catholicism,” and for showing him that Catholicism “held firmly to all the essentials of the historic Christian faith.”]

–  If anyone doubts that Hank Hanegraaff is pro-Roman Catholic, one only need read Hanegraaff’s 6/7/95 fund-raising appeal letter and the pro-Catholic book offered therein — Hanegraaff offers for a gift of $25, the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. (Geisler and MacKenzie believe that a “cooperative effort between Roman Catholics and evangelicals could be the greatest social force for good in America” [p. 357].) Hanegraaff calls Roman Catholics and Evangelicals “must reading” for “thinking Christians who are concerned, not only about sound theology, but also about the future of our nation.” He goes on to proclaim that any obstacles (such as doctrine?) between Protestants and Catholics should not stand in the way of cooperation in areas where we share mutual interests and concerns. This is the same compromising spirit expressed by the Evangelical & Catholics Together (ECT) document authored by Charles Colson in March of 1994. [On two other Bible Answerman programs (one in late-April, 1995, and the other in late-June), Hanegraaff interviewed Geisler concerning the book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. The compromise with Catholicism was absolutely sickening.]

CRI’s strong move toward ecumenism has led them to refuse to recognize Roman Catholicism for what it is — a cult at best and a false religion at worst. Hanegraaff, et al., continue to insist that Catholicism is a Christian religion with merely some teachings that they cannot agree with. In the process, CRI denigrates those who insist on not pandering to the Vatican’s ecumenical designs. CRI positions itself as the last word in apologetics and knowledge of theological issues. Their rallying cry is for adherence to orthodoxy rather than Biblicism; indeed, they would consider Roman Catholicism an orthodox faith. But orthodoxy is not Biblicism. Orthodoxy is largely based on religious tradition, and is, therefore, often found wanting. “Orthodoxy” is predicated upon the canons of whatever religious authority happens to interpret Scripture; it is not based upon Scripture directly. CRI wants us to believe that Roman Catholicism is a pussycat we can snuggle up to and join paws with for the Reconstructionist agenda of restructuring society. (Source: “Hanegraaff Urges Cooperation With Roman Catholicism,” Media Spotlight, Vol. 16 – No. 2 [9/95], pp. 5-6).

So am I surprised by the recent events and Hanegraaff’s ‘official’ departure from the faith? No, he left long ago.