Confessing and professing are not the same thing.

Sometimes the Bible says “confess”, with its meanings, and sometimes it says “profess”, with its meanings. Those words are not strictly interchangeable, but no doubt conceptually overlap.

In looking at the usages of these words, I would suggest that confess means to:
a. admit guilt
b. proclaim plainly agreement to a doctrine
c. reveal or disclose thoughts

Whereas profess means to:
a. claim, by speaking or proclamation
b. state one’s position or ability
c. lay hold in faith by speaking

Therefore, we can conclude that what some people call faith confessions (not to be confused with doctrinal confessions) really would better be called faith professions, like in this verse:

Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

See the following:

1 Tim. 6:12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession before many witnesses.

1 Tim. 6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Heb. 10:23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;)

Now, you can confess you agree with these Scriptures, but professing them means you act accordingly.

Sheikh Imran Hosein, a leading Islamic eschatologist and bosom friend of Russian anagogical ideologue, Alexander Dugin, has “predicted” (like his Russian friend) that World War Three is coming. Hosein has instructed his followers to abandon money, but to return to gold and silver and to sell up and move to the country and begin to live off the land so as to survive the coming war. He teaches the Islamic view of the end times, including the Islamic view of a coming false pro-Jewish leader and the Mahdi (the great Muslim saviour). Hosein also advocates an alliance with Russia and the Eastern Orthodox religion.

Some Christians have bought into this view, claiming that the Islamic saviour is indeed coming, whom they are calling “antichrist”. They have tried to match the Muslim ideology into interpreting the End Times in the Bible. Accordingly, the dragon of Revelation might be viewed as representing Islamic nations. They are also trying to say that the coming antichrist is the same as what the Muslims are calling the Mahdi.

Those Christians are only half right. The proper way to understand Bible prophecy is to disregard any Islamic teachings altogether. When we begin from the Protestant tradition, we find that there is a view that there is a WESTERN and an EASTERN antichrist. This is explained in detail in the book, “Multiple Fulfilments of Bible Prophecy”, bibleprotector.com/prophecy

The Eastern Antichrist is spoken about in Daniel 8 and Daniel 11. This is not the same as the Western Antichrist of the end times.

The Eastern Antichrist has three stages:
1. Antiochus Epiphanes, the Hellenistic Syrian ruler who persecuted the Jews.
2. Mohammad and the history of Islam to 1967.
3. The coming leader of Russia, Gog.

We are rapidly approaching the third stage.

The facts today showing how the third and final Eastern antichrist of history is ready:

1. Russia is involved with Syria today, an Islamic nation.
2. Russia and Islam are connected, such as Russia’s backing of the Syrian dictatorship, the Iranian dictatorship, etc.
3. Russia’s leading spiritual leader, Alexander Dugin, is directly connected with Sheikh Imran Hosein, who are talking about eschatology and Gog and Magog.

The final events of the Eastern Antichrist are described in Ezekiel 38 and 39.

“And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” (Matthew 24:11).

Of course, world war does come when the very same false prophets push it. But the Bible shows God ends their war, “And behold at eveningtide trouble; and before the morning he is not. This is the portion of them that spoil us, and the lot of them that rob us.” (Isaiah 17:14).

We shouldn’t be afraid about rumours of war.

“When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isaiah 59:19b).

Time to raise the standard.

I asked some ardent modernists the following:

What is the Scriptural basis for arguing that the original source texts are more authoritative than present copies, and what in Scripture-based doctrine indicates any specific divine sanction to Greek or Hebrew MSS?

The answer? Basically, they say, it is because the science of textual criticism says so, that the Scripture doesn’t say anything about textual criticism/transmission and that the science is valid because after all, the Bible fails to address elements of things like evolution, Einstein’s special relativity, etc.

My response to these kind of folks is as follows:

You are, incidentally, confirming that this debate is between an Enlightenment-based philosophy versus a Biblical doctrine interpretation of Scripture. That is, the debate is between reasoning as though the Scripture says nothing on Biblical transmission versus an interpretation of Scripture where many such references are identified.

I can also understand how people can then start from some point out of the Scripture, and arrive at all kinds of views such as evolution, Einsteinian special relativity, etc., which are thoroughly un- and anti-Biblical. I do not want to say it belligerently, but I think your side’s modern bible textual criticism view falls into that category, alongside the unbelief of higher criticism.

The foundational issue is to then question why do I see references to the Reformation, perfection of the KJB, nature of transmission of the Bible, etc., in Scripture, while you do not interpret so. I think it is because of a vastly different hermeneutical presupposition.

Continue reading →

Here’s a statement I made recently on an anti-King James Bible only forum,

The Reformation was not about going to the original languages specifically as such, but about believing Scripture was available and to be rightly understood, and that Romanism was corrupt. This means that the emphasis was on the Scripture coming into English above the emphasis of accepting Greek witness of Scripture which had come to hand. It assumed Scripture was available and readings recoverable rather than the modern anguished Greek-centric critical analytical view which is still grappling about with the Greek rather than having any resolution that things are right in English. The modern approach is essentially anti-Reformation because it denies that having a fixed Bible is a common possession, instead, like Romanism, full truth is locked away in another language, and only select individuals are “authorised” to deal with (and expound) it. While Greek was the main vehicle for NT early transmission, neither that language (though used by Apostles) is any more special, nor are surviving MSS any more venerable, than having Scripture common at hand properly in a resolved English form. I know what was communicated in Greek because we believers have a correct text (readings) and translation of it. The real Protestant Reformation-derived view is not “what do we think God said and meant in Greek”, but “what does God say exactly”. This necessarily leads to the conflict between the believing view of Prov. 22:20, 21 versus the “grammatical-historical” (i.e. revisionist) approach of modernistic hermeneutics. Foundationally behind all this is whether one starts from Scripture at hand and the doctrine therein to identify a correct providentially supplied copy, or whether one begins under the influence of Enlightenment-derived philosophy of external investigations into MSS, readings, probability, weight, empirical analyses, rationalisation, subjective opinion and the assumption that error prevails (in transmission and in recovery). This is an ideological battle between faith and antichristian modernism in the Protestant churches. Sadly, many good Chistians have been influenced (e.g. modern versions) by the other side. This is the great conflict for English-speaking Civilisation in our time.

Sadly, those against the King James Bible’s perfection are resorting to a deistic kind of view where perfection was only in the original inspiration, and that error has interfered in both the transmission and the recovery (modern textual critical) process. In other words, they are saying it is basically a law that you can’t have a perfect Bible ever.