Eight Men, Four Women and a Baby

December 1972. Walking in the rain, long hair hanging wet as I saunter along the Strand, heading towards Charing Cross Station dressed in a thick overcoat, covering an open neck shirt and without a tie, I had just presented myself for admission into the Lyceum Ballroom, close to the intersection of the Strand, Waterloo Bridge and Aldwych. Two smartly dressed doormen, one slim with a snooty look about him, the other burly and having every resemblance of a wrestler, stood at the entrance.  The slim one stretched his leg across the open narrow doorway whilst the other told me straight to go, take a hike.

...I sauntered along the Strand... Stock photo

Those two had actually done me a favour. A very big favour. Having been dumped by a girlfriend some eight months previously, any attempt to find another female for a relationship had since then drawn a blank. But as I sauntered along, feeling humiliated, ashamed and defeated, it didn't take much of a resistance to accompany two young strangers who stopped me in the street, each about my age, into a nearby pub after inviting them to dry off in a much warmer, cosier atmosphere characteristic of any tavern.

As they got me to read from a Bible one of them had produced, I suddenly realised that the refusal of those two doormen at the Lyceum to admit me was the work of God, to allow me to encounter these two much friendlier guys and to receive the Gospel. By believing that this whole West End scenario was a work of God resulted in an inner change which would have a massive impact on the rest of my life!

From that fateful night, what have I gotten myself into? This - my heart-belief that this Jesus of Nazareth was presented by the Jews to Pontus Pilate, endured a sham trial, was crucified, buried, and three days later, rose physically from the dead, and has ascended to His Father in Heaven, and eternal life is given freely to everyone who believes. And salvation being a free gift, it can never be taken away - ever. Why not? Because I have received a new birth, a regeneration into a new creation to be forever adopted as a son of God. Moreover, to be "in Christ" means exactly that: To have God the Father see me in exactly the same way as He sees His own Son, and to add to that, to have the whole Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Spirit making their home within me, according to John 14:23.

Through faith, God has put me into a new society, the church. Since 1974, after a time in the "wilderness", I attended three different churches, one after the other. The first was St Jude's in Brixton, South London. Sadly, this Anglican church had long gone out of existence and its traditional building with a spire was demolished. That, to me, is sad. Because, looking back, St Jude's Anglican was looked upon as a "nursery church" - a place where I began to grasp the fundamentals of the faith, to be fed with the milk of the Word. But even back then, the milk must have been very good. By then I found myself contending with a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses, attempting to prove to them that the phrase "Son of God" means that Jesus himself is God, one of the "persons" of the Trinity. Just like with physical exercise, to stress out my faith strengthens rather than breaks it. It was also at that phase in life when I testified at work that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Because each visit to St Jude's involves a train and tube journey, an agreement was eventually made for me to attend a church closer to home. I was recommended Bracknell Baptist Church, and so in the Spring of 1975, I paid my first visit there. I have found the Rev Ben Davies' authoritarian method of ministry quite different from the gentle ministry of the vicar of St Jude's. I personally refer to Bracknell Baptist Church (as it was called then) as the "university church". I remained there until 1989, and I drifted a little before joining Ascot Baptist in 1990, and I have always felt fully at home in this "adult church" right up to the present. Today, it's Ascot Life Church, taken from John 10:10.

Throughout these years I got to know many people of all ages. This included eight men who all passed their 50th birthday without ever marrying, let alone raising a family.

Neil, my former school classmate, was taller than me, slim and quite handsome. His phlegmatic temperament made him one of the easiest chaps to get on with, but such personality also had a downside. He had no sense of adventure, instead, he spent all his life within his comfort zone at his parent's home. Remaining unmarried, he died at the age of just sixty whilst caring for his elderly parents.

The other seven guys are all Christians. One of them, a graduate, has Asperger's and has the IQ of any Mensa member. Another had never attended a university. The rest are all singletons who hold a degree. Of all seven, three have admitted from time to time of their sadness and sense of loss from not having a wife and family. The remainder seems to be content with their non-marital status and take each day as it comes.

Present-day Ascot Life Church, member since 1990.

These eight chaps have all passed their 50th birthday without ever putting a ring on the bride's finger. But throughout my Christian life, I also got to know four unmarried women, all of them older than me. Two attended Ascot Baptist whilst the other two attended Bracknell Baptist. Two of them are already with the Lord whilst the remaining two are still with us. The two who died included Barbara, of Ascot, who has spent her whole life as an active missionary before being admitted into a care home with dementia. The other, Rosemary, died, I believe, of a broken heart sometime during the 1980s. Then there was the youngest of the four, who also attended Bracknell, is only a few months older than me.

But it's Rosemary who gets my attention here. Poor Rosemary! Every week, during the midweek prayer meeting, we sat in a large circle in the back room. Then, as expected, Rosemary would spill out her sorrows aloud in prayer, begging God to give her a man who would pour out his love for her. Often these weekly, regular prayers led her to tears, as she sobs her pleading to the Lord within earshot of the rest of us.

Rosemary was short in height, plump with a round face topped with curly brown hair, and wore glasses. As one guy who was engaged to be married to a pretty young fiancee, once said to me,

Ugh! Who would want to marry her? She's so ugly!

And that Sunday evening in the late 1970s. This same chap stood up at the front, and behind the pulpit, delivered his testimony and finished with the crowning glory of his engagement and forthcoming marriage. Immediately, Rosemary stood up and quickly left the building in distress, midway through the service.

Rosemary may have stormed out of the church building in tears and distress, but if only she knew! I actually attended this chap's wedding, but afterwards, his friendship with me cooled, and with him married and with me remaining single, he distanced himself. But it was some years later when talk began to spread. Apparently, one of his daughters became ill enough to develop a disability, and later, his wife met another man at a house party and eventually divorced her husband to pair off with him. Indeed, amidst such events, Rosemary is now far happier in Heaven.

As for myself, having faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour has made a massive difference to my life. For example, watching my own beloved wife slowly deteriorate in health, changing from a beautiful slim woman with long cascading hair into someone a little plumper with hair loss due to chemotherapy, really, having faith in God does make a difference. All those horrific pains she experiences, the calls for an ambulance, those long waits in Accident & Emergency, the abundance of medicine taken by both of us, then watching her cry over the loss of our daughters, yet secure in my love for her as well as feeling secure in her love for me, our devotion for each other, that sacrificial love which meets her needs before my own comforts - all this from having faith in God.

Thus, I'm happy to say that arguments and disagreements are just as rare as a desert oasis, as we both strive to keep our marriage sweet and robust. Her own faith in God is inspiring and is the source of encouragement whenever I feel down and faithless. As such, as a couple who believes in Divine Creation as recorded in Genesis to be historical and not mythical, we see each other as one created in God's image, after His likeness.

And so there is the church, a beautiful church whose members are each created in the image of God, and each one to be seen in exactly the Father sees His own Son, as each one of us is in Christ. Indeed, as God sees none of us with any form of preference, whether ethnic, racial, Jew or non-Jew, working class, middle or aristocratic class, of which nationality or even man or woman, for we are all one in Christ Jesus! Therefore, let him who holds a doctorate embrace one who is uneducated and pushes a broom for a living, let him who lives in a palace hold no issues against the homeless lying there in the street, and even offer accommodation, as both are made in the image of God.

Therefore I sigh - and sigh deeply - when a particular video poster appears on Facebook. Just to get one thing straight - there is nothing wrong with the poster. It was very professionally done, demonstrating a skill most of us don't have, and with certainty, I don't have! It consists of a video of a couple, only that it's divided into 24 squares, each containing an alternating moving image of his wife and himself. And the climax of the video? An announcement that they are going to have a baby.

Good for them! I congratulate on God's kindness to them.

According to the latest, the video has collected a massive 475 "likes", including love hearts, and 238 comments, just about all sending their congratulations and best wishes. Both are astronomical! And it's here that I may be risking taking on the role of a sour gooseberry. The video itself is good and is worth congratulating. But the video and all the feedback, 713 altogether could well upset another Rosemary somewhere out there, as the video is set to Public.

And here I take an issue by asking: If the chap was uneducated and actually spent time in prison, or to put it another way, holds a felony record, and she a former striptease dancer, would he get so much feedback? Especially from other Christians? Or if he's a road sweeper and she a superstore shelf-stacker, would they still receive 475 "likes" in just a few days from fellow church members?

Therefore I get that horrible gut feeling that there is a connection between the average English Christian and this couple, especially him, who is middle-class and holds an honourable bachelor degree in theology and Bible studies as well as another bachelor degree in business management. And he's now in a role of church leadership. Therefore are they worthy of far greater honour than the less educated?

The issue lies not so much with the poster but more so with their followers who, despite the recognition that we are all one in Christ, instead, as typical Englishness goes, most Christians can't help but cling on to our national culture where class favouritism is ingrained in the genome.

Poor Rosemary. Even if she was alive now, she would still be unable to find a man at the Lyceum, and her weeping due to endless loneliness will continue.

That is because the former ballroom is now a theatre.

A Rabbit from the Hat...

If you enjoy writing, or in my case, addicted to it, do you ever suffer from writer's block? That is if I understand the term correctly, wanting to go ahead but have absolutely no idea what to write about? Fortunately, with me, that's not often the case, but I feel it this week. I seem to have run out of new ideas. Therefore, with God's help, I will challenge myself to pull a rabbit out of the hat.

Perhaps this may be out of an uneventful week. Saving, of course, the ongoing unrest over Brexit at Westminster, and oh yes, the rather astonishing victory for England over a very famous New Zealand All Blacks this morning as our team scored 19 points to their 7. And that despite the game featuring two no-tries by the England team. Had these scores been valid, England could have won with a total of 33 points, including conversions and penalties. At least for England fans, this must have been a wonderful dose of elixir amid the ongoing and never-ending disputes in Parliament, such political issues quite likely making this country a laughing stock internationally.

Perhaps we needn't worry. France is getting fed up with us. At a meeting at Brussels with reps from all 27 nations making up the EU, only French President Emmanuel Macron stood up against a three-month extension, whilst the other 26 seemed to be okay with the extended delay. As a result, if a no-deal Brexit takes place at the end of this month, then it will be more of France kicking us out of the EU rather than us merely walking away. How appropriate too, if this whole shenanigan happens to take place at Halloween, while the first name of the French president means God with us. Is there something in all this, perhaps a joke somewhere?

And like the previous week, there I sat among fans at Ascot life Church, watching the game from the same screen where the words of Christian songs are normally displayed. Too bad, as luck would have it, by oversleeping, I got up late, and despite cycling fast over the four-mile journey, I missed the first seven minutes of the first half - within such a short space of time, England had already scored their first try and conversion, making their score already seven points up upon their opponents as I walked into the building, damp with sweat. By missing the opening score has put a damper on the whole day, and I can only imagine the wild, excited cheers among the audience. Too bad those wooden rotating rattles don't exist any more, they were banned in 1970. Or else there would have been one big party at Ascot Life Church.

The cheers from the predominantly-male audience rose every time the ball fell into the hands of an England player, let alone scoring a try or even a drop-goal. Everyone that is except me, who merely clapped like a toff at the Oval or at Wimbledon. Indeed, cheering at a game has never been my forte, especially after missing the first vital seven minutes. Rather, I was far more content in pitting my wits and physical prowess against competing cyclists at a triathlon event during my heyday of the 1980s. And where two wheels are concerned, I did pretty well.

Rugby is a game I prefer watching than Association Football (or Soccer.) Too often, football ends in a draw, often a goalless draw, which means another thirty minutes of play, and if still no result, then a penalty shootout if not a replay at a later date. As I see it, a penalty shootout is just a hollow victory for the winning team. As such, I tend to find watching football very frustrating indeed. At least with rugby, a deciding score is guaranteed, or at least, over the years I'd watched rugby, I have never seen a game end in a draw. But if England was to win this year's World Cup Rugby, celebrations for such an achievement would never hold a candle to the glory of the World Cup Football tournament. A simple proof of this is to observe any housing estate. Not one English flag is displayed for this rugby tournament as they would have been in football.

When England won the 2003 Rugby World Cup against Australia in their home country, there was very little razzmatazz, and the victory could have gone virtually unnoticed. Very unlike the 1966 Football World Cup victory against Germany at Wembley. The fanfare which followed, including the bus ride through the streets of London escorted by thousands of cheering fans, is remembered to this day. Perhaps it's that sense of national greatness, this imperialistic and a sense of superiority over all foreigners which might have been the underlying cause on why England had never won the World Cup tournament since.

It's this repeat of this sense of national cockiness and pride arising from both the victory in the Rugby World Cup and Brexit which restricted my own cheering to mere clapping - and that done lamely as well, without the verbal cheering which was characteristic of everyone else in that room. Maybe I am a wet blanket, a damp squib, a spoilsport, yet nevertheless, when the All Blacks did score a try and conversion within the second half, I was tempted to yell YESS! - but held my tongue in keeping with the otherwise melancholic silence which hung in the air.

I think supporting a team is great. I wish I could give such heart-driven support myself. I also wish that I had the full freedom to cheer New Zealand's try without the accompanying feeling of being the odd one in the audience. I know, it's in a church and we are all Christians. All of us should know better than to frown at the individual cheering the opposite side. There is something good, something which is sportsmanlike about cheering the opposing side when they score, especially after a tremendous amount of effort put in at overcoming our side's defence.

Recognising that we are not the products of molecule-to-man evolution, but instead, we were created in God's own image, I think, will greatly endear better respect for the opposing team. That would, for example, mean a clapping of hands when the All Blacks did score and further clapping at the successful conversion. I think this would have made the whole experience even better, a greater feel for Christian unity.

If Divine Creation was a universal reality accepted by everyone - accepted as equally factual as fitting a huge, heavy metal tube with wings and it will actually defy gravity and fly - I'm sure that watching international sport as a group would be a far more enjoyable occasion. I go by experience. For many years, whenever England plays Italy at a major football international, I was always fearful that Italy would lose. I was concerned because if England wins, I would receive that condescending look, that sneer, that showing of proof that England is the best. And if a condescending look could launch a thousand ships, then the need to say anything becomes pointless. Back in the eighties, into the nineties, that was the stressful atmosphere created, in all places, within a church environment.

Yet in all paradoxes, one person specifically referred to was actually a Creationist. So he believed in his head without that vital 18-inch connection to his heart which would have quite likely transformed him. Indeed, I have overheard him say to another friend that if he had his way, he would steamroller over the opposing team, especially one from abroad. Furthermore, this was also an indication for his desire to see English troops reclaim the Empire, especially with himself involved. What I have also found remarkable was that he had a distinct dislike for the Scotsman and only a grudging respect for the Welsh. Not exactly matching the ethic that we are all created in God's own image. Or is it?

By checking what's written in Paul's letters, I come across these verses:

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptised into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Jesus, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

Galatians 3:26-29.

Oh, if only this Scripture was set in the depths of my friend's heart! Just think for a moment. We are clothed in Jesus Christ. Therefore God sees us in exactly the same way he sees his only begotten Son. So powerful is this reality that God no longer sees us as Jew or non-Jew (nor English either) nor does he see us as even male or female, slave or free (neither working or middle class as well) but as Abraham's singular seed, therefore, must be referring to Jesus Christ. And if we're Abraham's seed, then we must be heirs to the promise. It's an amazing thought a wonderful reality. Furthermore, let me quote here in full:

What, then, can we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all - how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?

Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies.

Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died - more than that, who was raised to life - is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us.

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?

As it is written:

For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.

No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.

For I'm convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels or demons, nor the present nor the future, nor the powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.  

Romans 8:31-39.

Such word kills every form of favouritism, it kills any sense of patriotism, to favour our own country above another, especially in sport and culture. Here must be a greater meaning of being born again than we can readily grasp. Being a new creation, to be born of Abraham's seed.

I find it interesting that the devout Englishman who would have looked down on me if his beloved national football team had beaten Italy - does not believe in Once Saved Always Saved, as the above verses strongly indicate. And he was, and is, not alone, quite a few of his friends, and mine too, hold to the idea that salvation can be lost if the believer fails to stay in line.

Pardon me, and I might be wrong here, but over the years I have gotten the impression that those who don't believe in Eternal Security are some of the unhappiest people I have ever met. I once heard that more than 80% of all Christians who end up in an institution believe that salvation can be lost. I have also found, over years of experience, that these people are the most difficult to get on with, as I have found them prone to be more judgemental.

Oh, how I long for the above-quoted verses to embed themselves into the heart of every Christian! And maybe during such international games, a greater level of respect can be offered to any foreign team playing against England.

And furthermore, I managed to pull a rabbit out of the hat. Not by magic, nor by intelligence, but by the power of God. 

A Wonderful Miracle in El Salvador

When it come to browsing through Facebook, indeed the current excess feed on Playbuzz personality quizzes, BBC News, How Stuff Works, post ads for Blogging Circle and I'm a Blogger, as well as Suggested Posts, all this can fill the wall with material which seems to be irrelevant to life in the real world. To add to this, an apparent lack of communion among friends, friends of friends, or even the public, often makes Facebook somewhat impersonal at times. Except for one particular video which appeared a couple of weeks ago.

It was a video posted to the Guardian newspaper about a church planting taking place at El Salvador, a small country in Central America with the highest murder rate in the world. Since the Civil War in the 1980's, two rival gangs began to spring up. One is MS-13, the other 18th Street (from those who fled to Los Angeles and were later deported back to El Salvador). Infinite numbers of teenagers in the 14-15 age realm had died as a result of not obeying their ringleaders. One particular area, Distrito Italia, in a provincial town of Apopa, became so dangerous that Government officials refuse to enter the area to provide services.

Then at an El Salvador prison, many of the inmates were converted to Christ as a result of a visiting preacher. The converts quickly realised that there are only three ways out of the gangland culture - violent street death, death in a hospital, or through faith in God, so one interviewee said.

The video shows a congregation of exclusively male prison inmates singing praises to God and testifying how having faith in Jesus Christ have totally changed their lives. Elsewhere, church-based centres were established, offering dormitory-style accommodation in exchange for domestic duties to ex-gang members who have found themselves homeless. At another location, a church had grown from the initial seventy members to that of 1,500. I would say that the majority of these converts bear tattoos from their former lifestyles, making them look very different from the traditional English middle class churchgoer.

In fact, they admit this themselves. As one pastor quoted: We are not the typical Christian - in a sense if referring to our perception of what a Christian should be. But all testify to a strong love and passion for Jesus and a strong commitment to each other.

It is while dwelling on these things when I began to speculate whether they believe in Eternal Security of the Believer. Actually, if I were to approach any of these converts or their pastors with such a question, the most likely response would be that they would shrug their shoulders as they try to work out what I'm talking about, then simply say they are devoted to God and express their determination not to yield to temptation, simply because of their love and devotion to Christ. The concept of Eternal Security, in all probability, would be unknown to them.

Therefore I consulted a website on the religious background of El Salvador as a nation. According to the statistics (with some minor variances) approximately half the population, around 48-52% are Roman Catholics, a further 28-30% are Protestants, and the remaining 20% or so are of other diverse faiths, including Judaism. Among the Protestants, the vast majority are of the Pentecostal denominations, along with sub-groups including the Assemblies of God, the Church of Christ, some Baptists, even Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormonism making up a small minority, and there are others who have pagan or no religion at all.

If Britain can be regarded as a Western model to go by, chances are that the greater majority of El Salvador Protestants are from the respectable middle classes, worlds away from gangland culture. Their way of life are not much different from our own British Christians (except perhaps a little less reserved), well educated and with respectable careers allowing them to bring home an adequate income to support their families.

Although I cannot be cut and dried on these matters, chances are that these gangsters in general have a Catholic background. Having looked back at my own experiences, along with having spoken to nominal Catholics who were thoroughly hostile to their boyhood faith, together with watching their videos touching on such hostility towards their religious background, my assumption does not appear to look at all out of place. As a Catholic myself, I recall the Church teachings on infused righteousness, received at infant baptism, which means that if I commit a minor sin, then in the afterlife its some time spent in Purgatory, a temporary hell where such sins are purged out before entering Heaven. Then there is always that major or mortal sin knocking on the door, and to die with a mortal sin means Hell for all eternity with no chance of redemption. The trouble is, with no distinction between a "venial" sin and a "mortal" sin, no Catholic can be assured of Heaven after death. Instead, he must spend his whole life confessing to a priest, do penance, partake in the Sacraments, and to lead a sinless life to keep himself out of Hell. Little wonder that the God of the Catholic is either looked upon apathetically, or his existence denied. Or perceived as most feared, if not hated, for his truculence!

Basilica San Pietro, Rome. 

Therefore it comes to no surprise to learn that these dangerous gangs of El Salvador were most likely former Catholics. It was only after conversion when they learned that faith in Christ alone brings eternal life, and therefore able to love God with sincerity, rather than debating within their minds about their own fate in the afterlife. Hence the difference between infused and imputed righteousness. The first must be sustained by the believer, the second is being credited with the righteousness of Christ.

Oh, to be credited with the righteousness of Christ! That means God sees us in the same way he sees Jesus Christ. That is the meaning of the word Christian. It literally means Little Christ. Eternally Secure! No wonder I'm an advocate of such a wonderful doctrine. An adopted son of God, never to be disenfranchised. Born anew into God's eternal Kingdom. That is the meaning of Regeneration, the birth of the new man within me, one who is incapable of sin and has a desire for God's holiness.

As I sat at a Costa Coffee in Reading earlier this week, I felt my soul lift as I meditated on the love of Christ, and I expressed my longing for him to take me into his heart and be forever united with God. And by thanking him for my retirement, my wife and for all daily provisions. Even toward those who hate me, at that moment I felt no antagonism towards them. Instead, I felt wonderful peace and joy, an awareness of God's presence. My request is that I'll get closer and closer to God throughout the rest of my life. This is the fruit of Eternal Security. Knowing never to be lost again, ever. Is it this what those ex-gangsters are experiencing at El Salvador? After all, their love and commitment to God and to each other seem to reflect this.

The wonderful truth is that when a sinner turns to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, he is forever saved, whether he realises it or not. A Christian may not believe in Eternal Security, not too sure, or is unaware of it, but that does not change the facts. It's a bit like questioning whether my heart keeps on beating while I'm asleep. Despite my doubts, it still beats on as long as I remain alive.

And the problem of sin is why I have eternal security through the righteousness of Christ imputed into my account. James 2:10 says that if I keep the whole Law but stumble at just one point, then I'm guilty of breaking the whole law. Hence the massive problem facing Catholics. It takes just one sin committed and already he's in big trouble. Therefore Eternal Security as a result of a spiritual rebirth  in Christ can only in itself satisfy.

Therefore I can't help but pity those Christians who are convinced that salvation can be lost after believing. Known as Arminians, from the 16th Century Dutch theologian Jacob Arminius, they are faced with a massive problem when confronting sin. Arminius taught that by turning from the faith or to commit a serious sin or a large number of sins, salvation can be forfeited and the person ends up in Hell. Here lies the problem. Nobody knows where the line is drawn when once crossed, it's past the point of no return. Yet the Bible teaches that just one minor sin is enough for disenfranchisement. After all, the sin committed by Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of a certain tree does not look very serious, yet it was enough to bring about the Fall, and death to all men thereafter.

This leads to a very perverse view of God, not unlike with those gangsters before their conversion. If God is seen as truculent, then the believer will behave the same way. One striking example of this occurred a few weeks ago. When I greeted this Arminian with a light body touch, he immediately turned to me and shouted that he does not want to know me and I should consult the elders, thus disgracing himself before anyone who might be watching. He is certainly not unique. I have come across this sort of anger among Arminians quite a number of times before. What amazes me about all this is that by such action he has already sinned against God, therefore according to his theological viewpoint he might have already lost his salvation.

What a contrast between all this and the attitude of these El Salvador converts! These ex-gangsters are unlikely to be aware of Eternal Security of the Believer yet they act as if they were aware. They revel in God's love with a lasting wish for further closeness with God and the willingness to testify of his salvation. Among them there is no debate on eternal security - a debate which they may be better off without.

On top of their love and commitment to God, they were committed to each other as well as having concerns for the lost around them. And that has always been one of my concerns about unbelievers. Day by day I cross paths with other men, women, families, children. I watch television, listen to the radio, read newspapers, browse the Internet. To one blogger friend I have expressed my concern on her comments forum. In it I admitted my difficulty in praising God knowing that Hell exists and the lost are heading straight towards it. I think of my parents and my brother. My father has passed away a few years ago after admitting that he doesn't believe in the same way that I believe. My mother is still alive but suffering severe memory loss. My brother, once an atheist, might have second thoughts about God, especially after Dad died. Yet everyone who knows me, within the family circle and outside, are aware on where I stand in the faith.

My blogging friend's response was interesting. She wrote that since none of us are fit for Heaven, for a sinner to be saved is an even bigger question, with her explanation that entry into Heaven through the imputed righteousness of Christ is indeed worthy of praise. Such a response had altered my perception of God and his love. I guess I naturally take after my father, tending to see the glass as half empty. The grace of God is about the glass being half full, or better still, completely full. A sinner is saved because God loves him and is willing to show mercy. It's from this new perception that I have enjoyed the peace and joy of God whilst sitting alone at Costa Coffee.

And for his sake, not ours. I believed, received mercy and was saved for his sake. All the ex-gangsters at El Salvador were saved for his sake, not merely theirs. Really, I hope they all realise this and believe this. Because to know that we are all saved by grace for his sake and for the glory of God brings eternal security, and so the Bible tell us (for example: Ezekiel 36:22-28, Ephesians 1:3-14). We are saved for his sake. This truth is a good enough foundation for believing in Eternal Security of the Believer. 

Wow! A Fossilised Pocket Watch.

As the plane soared above the stunning Scottish mountains, I sat there by the window with a sense of astonishment of the view as the airline soared some 35,000 feet 10,670 metres into the clear sky, with the sunshine contrasting the land with the almost black sea and lochs. But with the stunning beauty way below, I also felt a sense of apprehension on what would lie ahead, for this particular 1977 journey from London to Toronto was my first long-haul flight I had ever taken. 

Not that I hadn't flown before. The last trip I took was only a year earlier in 1976, a flight to Tel Aviv. But was that particular flight the longest short-haul flight classified, or the shortest long-haul? After all, a flight from London to Amman, only a small fraction longer, was - and I guess still is - categorised as long-haul. The two preceding flights out of London, one to the Spanish airport of Girona in 1972, and the other to Milan in 1974, were indeed short-haul. Even though I was already nineteen years of age when I first ever boarded a plane, due to my late father's averse to flying combined with his love for the steering wheel, I had never flown with any of my family members.

Therefore sitting alone inside a sealed capsule among complete strangers, I felt a need for divine assurance. And so, during the in-flight meal, I took the bread roll, broke it, and quietly proclaimed,

This is the body of Christ broken for me. And I ate whilst meditating. Then I took the glass of red wine and said,

This is the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed for me. I'll shall drink it in memory of Him, which I proceeded to do.

I did ponder whether I had bestowed a blessing on myself, or whether I had committed a deadly sin, for according to the Catholic Church, I have violated a sacred sacrament by taking it without priestly authority.

And if all that was not enough, a year later in 1978, once again I found myself on board a transatlantic flight, this time from London to New York. And during a mid-flight meal I repeated the sacrament of eating a piece of bread and drinking red wine symbolising the body and blood of Jesus Christ broken and shed whilst hanging on that cross.

Dripping with sweat, inside head of Statue of Liberty, 1978.

I'm glad to say that no harm had ever came to me as a result of these mid-flight self-administered Holy Communion meals, despite what the Church of Rome might think. So far I didn't die and then finding myself tumbling into the eternal fires of Hell. Rather, on both these backpacking trips I felt as if I was blessed. Being close to God, feeling his protective presence where ever I went, never coming across any difficulty in finding a room at every hotel reception I called at.

However, as I sat in the aeroplane full of strangers, there was another important reason on why I self-administered a Communion meal other than for seeking assurance. As a son of Adam and Eve, I was unfortunate enough to inherit original sin from them, which has caused spiritual death and separation from God, with physical death to follow, and a lost eternity spent separated from God's personal presence. But because of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, through faith in him I was acquitted from the penalty with all my sins forgiven - past, present and future - and the Righteousness of Christ was credited to my account, and I was adopted into his family as a son of God.

The righteousness credited to my account was Christ's righteousness, not my own! As the Scripture says, 

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

Romans 4:4-5.

Therefore the truth of Eternal Security of the Believer, or Once Saved Always Saved, must stand with this truth of justification by faith because such emanates from this truth of the Gospel. Therefore the eating of the Body of Christ and the drinking of his Blood by means of bread and wine attest of eternal salvation gotten through Jesus Christ - a glorious truth in the face of the uncertainty facing me after landing.

But to take Holy Communion mid-flight with such conviction on both trips - surely such a sacrament must be based on factual history. Did Jesus Christ really exist some two millennia previously? Did the Last Supper, on which my in-flight Communion was based upon, itself actually took place? Furthermore, was it him who was crucified and died while still fastened to the cross? After all, Islam insists that it was Judas Iscariot who hung there. And after burial, did he actually rise from the dead? According to one national newspaper, it was thought that Jesus Christ did not actually die, but instead fell unconscious, and was buried in that state, as if he was suffering from catalepsy. Then after waking up, somehow with unimaginable strength, he managed to move the stone covering the mouth of the tomb, and then walked away, probably to a remote desert, never to be seen again.

If any of these things occurred, all which differed to what is recorded in the four Gospels, then really, our faith is in vain, remaining futile, there is no salvation, and all that time spent in church - even if I enjoy singing, praising, praying to God, and listening to sermons, as well as trying hard to love one another despite our different opinions - it would have turned out to be a total waste of time and effort. If I attend church for up to two hours every Sunday for fifty weeks of the year, that would be as much as an annual top up of a hundred hours, or four full 24-hour days where I would be better off spending at a luxury hotel by the seaside. Furthermore, those sacraments taken whilst mid-flight would serve no other purpose but to make a fool of myself in view of anyone watching.

All these things came to mind while we were watching a television documentary about the Jurassic Coast, presented by Dan Snow, Lucy Cooke, and wheelchair-bound Niall Strawson. This three-part series occupied an hour-long slot on BBC Four, therefore down from peak evening viewing of BBC One. As we were watching the third programme, I felt my spirit sink into sadness and hopelessness as the words evolve, evolution, and evolutionary were constantly repeated. Throughout the entire three hours of broadcast, not one word about God, Supernatural Creation or Noah's Flood was mentioned. However, it was Lucy Cooke who, with a moment of hesitation, used the word designed in her description of a fossil with intricate detail.

Perhaps the Lord, with a sense of humour, does allow the presenter to let her guard slip on occasions. And no doubt, as I see it, the Jurassic Coast is a testimony of the Biblical Deluge, which stretches from Old Harry Rocks which are the chalk stacks east of Swanage, all the way west to Exmouth, on the River Exe estuary. The resort of Lyme Regis, where many fossils are displayed and sold, lies on the Dorset side of the border with Devon, itself midway along the Jurassic Coast.

And so the public is fed to the hilt with how these fossils of mainly marine creatures, are out-and-out proof of organic evolution - despite that these lifeforms look to all have died together at one instance. And how my spirit sank in very much the same way those creatures sank to the bottom of the ocean. Because, like the newspaper testimony above, if evolution is a scientific fact, then my faith in Christ is a sham and the Christian faith is a worthless ideology. For Darwinism is a direct denial that Jesus is the Christ who atoned for our sins.

While Dan Snow dealt mainly with human history around that stretch of coast, particularly of wartime tanks and submarines, Lucy Cooke narrated on the fossils so frequently found here. A fossil expert who was with Cooke picked up what looked like a large rounded limestone pebble. He then struck it with a hammer, and the two halves came apart to reveal a beautifully-detailed fossil ammonite. When asked how he knew that this ordinary-looking pebble contained such a intricate fossil, his answer was that by looking at the surface, some detail of the edge can be seen. I guess this can be referred to as a ham-roll effect. Only the edge of the ham at the outer surface can reveal its presence between the two bread roll halves.

The ammonite remains represent the ideal fossil of a creature which lived in the Jurassic Period somewhere between 145,000,000-200,000,000 years ago. That's pretty old, and such remains found embedded in limestone are classed as a true fossil, a thought-view which carries the notion that it takes millions of years for a dead organism to fossilize. And this theory of tremendous longevity is essential for Darwin's evolutionary theories to hold true. And such theories are spoon-fed to the public which in turn accept without any ado. And furthermore, no one in his right mind would dare throw a challenge. If the challenger is a man in the street, he would simply be ignored. If a graduate or a university professor and civil engineering, such as the late Henry M. Morris, then its likely that he will be ostracised by the scientific community, who will write papers debunking his Creationist stance. 

It was within the first fifteen minutes of the second show when something I consider to be very remarkable. Here stood Lucy Cooke talking to an expert about some sealed bottled perfumes, together with a couple of china vessels and statuettes, all of them around a hundred years old, found at a shipwreck off the coast of Dorset. And next to the porcelain was an insignificant-looking lump of rock. And fully embedded in the rock was what looked like a man-made artifact. After thorough cleaning and examination, the artifact turned out to be a pocket watch, almost entirely entombed in solid rock in virtually the same way the ammonite was entombed in a limestone pebble.

The rock featured on the BBC: A watch "fossilized".

A pocket watch embedded in "crud" - solidified mud.

Interestingly enough, Cooke remarks that it will take a further 130,000,000 years before the watch will be a "proper" fossil. But going by the hardness of the rock, isn't it a fossil already? What is the real difference between it and that of the ammonite? Except for its age and of different rock composition? The rock in which the watch is embedded is given a name "crud", which is mud consolidated into rock. What I find so fantastically remarkable about this exhibit is that if a man-made artifact of little more than a hundred years of age can be entombed in solid rock at an amazingly quick time, then why does the ammonite need millions of years to achieve the same result?

It is as if God is desperately trying to tell us something, and just by looking at all the fossils found around the coast and elsewhere, one obvious conclusion can be drawn, and that is all fossilised organisms - whether its marine life, plant and trees, birds, or land animals including Dinosaurs, must have died very quickly, were buried and preserved as fossils over a very short duration. At is as if God is saying, Hey, look guys. What I have written in my Book is historic and true. There was a universal Deluge in the days of Noah, and you are looking at the evidence right now. Oh, so you want more proof that fossilization is quick and recent? Well there you are, a watch preserved in stone. There you have it.

As I stand, this revelation is vital for the Christian faith. Mythologize any part of the Bible, especially the early chapters of Genesis, and the Christian faith will go down like a house of cards. But even the reality of Noah's Flood isn't by means all and end all. Rather it's the historical truth of Adam and Eve. For the reality of Jesus Christ can only stand if Adam and Eve were real too, along with Divine Creation and the Fall, as well as the Deluge, the cause of the formation of fossils. Because through their transgression sin entered the world and death to all men. This concept, which is within the very heart of the Christian faith, can only stand if there was an Adam and Eve, and they were created direct from the ground as the Bible teaches, and were not descended from a human line gradually going back to the primates, as all of these must have died already, before the Fall, therefore nullifying the purpose of Jesus Christ and the Atonement he made on the Cross. 

Forgiving - For MY Benefit!

I think it was around 1991 or 1992 when this very good-looking, slim fellow arrived at our church in Ascot. The timing of his arrival is based on the fact that my 1994 stint in Israel hadn't yet occurred, let alone the 1995-1998 long haul backpacking trips which were still to come. Estimating to be around 6'2" or 6'3" 1.88 metres tall, he towers over my own healthy 5'11" 1.80 m height. Sporting a moustache, this young man, whose name turned out to be John, has a wife and at that time, two pre-teenage sons. At our first meeting, John and I had hit it off well, and I became acquainted with the whole family, even to the extent that John invited me, while I was still single in those days, to his home for Sunday lunch after the morning service.

John is a few years younger than I am, but well ahead of me with his marriage responsibilities and raising of a family. After dinner, the table was set for a family quiz-based board game which was similar in style to Trivial Pursuit. Some time later, I sat at another table with the two boys, each of us contributing towards the completion of a jigsaw puzzle. The serenity created in the atmosphere whilst each piece was fitted into place had earned praise from the wife by commenting that I was good with children. He became a member of the church's music team with his trumpet or similar brass instrument until he left our church in 2006 or 2007 for a period of time before returning in 2012.

But before leaving our church, John and I were good friends. By then I was married to my dearest Alex, and we already have our firstborn two-year-old daughter Rosina, and another was on its way, when at a house-group meeting, I made a confession of financial hardship due to various difficulties arising in my domestic window cleaning business, particularly with delays among clientele paying their fees. It was John who pulled out a sum of money which turned out to be a great help in making ends meet until all my customers paid up. And that sum of money was a gift and not a loan. This was another gesture I have not allowed myself to forget.

Alex's second pregnancy with Louise progressed well - until one early Spring morning in 2004, whilst relaxing in the sauna after a tiring week's work, a staff member informed me that I had to return home straight away. When I got home, I found that Alex had gone into early labour. I called for an ambulance and also contacted my in-laws, who offered to take care of our daughter Rosina. What followed was an admission into the labour ward of Royal Berkshire Hospital to await the birth. 

The rest of the day turned into evening, and then into the night. I sat on a chair beside my wife's bed. Nothing happened, except the constant rapid beating of the fetus' heart amplified through a monitor, with which I tried to imagine as being on board a Ferrovie di Italia train as it travelled fast along the Paris-Dijon section of line towards Italy, as I recall such a journey made so clearly in 1973. This imaginary metamorphosing of the fetus heartbeat to that of a moving train helped me through a tense, sleepless night. By daybreak, Alex was transferred to a prenatal ward, where I stayed with her until evening. Then, as night drew in and there seems to be no further progress towards delivery, I decided to get a train home for a night's rest.

By eleven at night I was stripped naked when the phone rang. It was from the labour ward with the news that Alex was about to deliver. I almost panicked. There were no more trains into Reading at this time of the night. And even if there were, the journey back would be far too slow for such an emergency situation. So I made a phone call to John and explained to him the situation. In next to no time he knocked on my door. His wife waited in the car as we began to set off to the maternity block some twelve miles away. The journey was fast as we all sensed the hurry. When John drove up to the drop-off point, we said a simple prayer and I then jumped out of his car and made a dash to the entrance of the building and ran up the stairs to the labour ward. No fuel fees were asked as the couple made their way back home.

My daughter was born just ten minutes later at 11.50 pm. Had it not been for John, I would have missed the birth of Louise and therefore scuppering our birth plans we made weeks earlier. The wonderful favour John and his wife did for us on that night is forever etched on my mind. Furthermore, after the birth, John would collect me for a weekly trip to a local pub, where we had deep discussions on just about anything to do with family upbringing and theology. It was during these pub socials that I discovered how his Arminian stance on a person's salvation disagrees with my Calvinistic view of the believer's Eternal Security.

And so after John returned to our church after his exile, he returned minus his moustache and with a very different attitude towards me. Having gained weight, he is to this day rather imposing. Being taller than me, he could - quite literally - knock me out cold. And so at a men's Curry Club one evening a couple of years ago, he growled at me when I tried to sit next to him. Scary stuff. His hostility towards me has been on-going to this day. I felt cornered whenever he is around. Until last Saturday.

The Kerith Centre at Bracknell holds a Band of Brothers meeting for all men in that church. A very good post-graduate friend of mine who holds a doctorate in genetics and is a regular at the Kerith, is a direct link between the Band of Brothers group and myself, an outsider, allowing me to attend such meetings whenever it takes place, which is usually three times a year. Last week, the topic was about forgiveness, and even after four decades of being a Christian believer, the preach was an eye-opener. Something I had never realised before then!

Because up to then, I cannot see any benefit the wrongdoer would receive if I forgave him long after he had moved away, or after he died. The issue behind such wrongdoing remains forever unsolved, and if ever the perpetrator have thoughts about me, or memories of me, it will always be felt with a degree of hostility. So why forgive? He would never have the chance to apologise nor would he nurture any positive feelings for me. And the grave would cement the hostile issue forever.

But the preach centred on forgiving someone does not benefit the wrongdoer or perpetrator. Rather it would benefit me. I'm the one who would benefit, not the perpetrator. After this we were all challenged to close our eyes and think of anyone who had wronged in the past, and forgive him, her, or them. As the room fell into silence, I began to think. Then I remembered John. But how could I forgive him? The dispute between us is ongoing. Then I began to recall those good times we had together - the money given during hard times, the late night lift to hospital, the pub socials. With such good memories, to forgive John was made a lot easier, believe me. To forgive him means to have no ill-feeling for him whatsoever. Rather, my hand of friendship is extended. It's now up to him to take hold of it.

Such an eye-opener immediately reminds me of a passage of Scripture that I have been familiar with for years, but I had never applied it to my own sake. Here it what it says:

Therefore say to the house of Israel, "This is what the Sovereign LORD says: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am going to do those things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone."

Ezekiel 36:22.

Then the passage continues on about removing the heart of stone from their flesh and giving them a heart of flesh, and filling them with his Spirit, so that they will all follow my decrees and keep my laws out of love for God, and not by fear of punishment. Also Psalm 106:8 says that we are saved for his sake rather than ours. If the honour for his name lies behind our salvation, then this seems to endorse the truth of Eternal Security. But I can understand from where the Arminian get his ideas from. For example, when Jesus taught his disciples how to pray, as recorded in Matthew 6:9-13, he included the phrase, forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors. He then embellished on this particular issue by saying that whether the Father will forgive your sins is dependent on whether you will forgive anyone who has wronged you (Matthew 6:14-15).

Also another powerful lesson on forgiveness delivered by Jesus to his disciples is found in Matthew 18:21-35, which is the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant. Then after telling this fascinating story, it is given the final conclusion that this is the way the Father will treat everyone who does not forgive his brother from his heart. The average Arminian will most likely use this as an answer on whether a Christian can lose his salvation or not. Simply put, if you don't forgive your brother's sins, then God won't forgive you of your sins. However, since this was spoken before the Atonement was made on the Cross, for the believer at present, in regards to the afterlife, this presents some problems.

First of all, the believer's salvation depending on how he is treating his fellow believer is a contradiction to being forgiven for God's sake and for his name to be honoured. Instead, the mercy bestowed is entirely grounded on the recipient's heart attitude. Secondly, as I can see, in the parable the servant's debt, and a very large debt at that, remains unpaid. Instead, it is cancelled. This is very different from being paid off by someone else substituting for the servant. If the debt remains unpaid, then justice has not been fulfilled. The master can call his servant back in at any time to reckon his account and demand the money back. And at the end that is exactly what the master does. But if someone pays the entire debt on the servant's behalf, then he is truly free from debt. The master has his money and nothing else is owing to him. The servant is free indeed. 

Left to ourselves, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible to forgive someone from the heart. Even worse if during a lifetime there are many sources for grievance. If God's mercy depends on our performance in forgiving others, then everyone is in some kind of trouble, whether small or great. Heaven would be empty of people. That's why, I believe, Jesus gave this parable. To show that we are all indebted to God and unless someone steps in to pay off our debts on our behalf, we'll all be in big trouble.

But having said that, the parable does have a purpose for today's Christians, as does the Lord's Prayer. Because to forgive someone is very beneficial to both mental and physical health. This could be the intent on why the unmerciful servant was thrown into jail whilst still alive here on Earth instead of at some postmortem hellish confinement. Forgiving or not forgiving will affect our well-being. According to Dr. McMillen,* there are many diseases and poor health resulting from ongoing anger, bitterness and resentment. Refusing to forgive, according to this Christian medic, destroys one's health, and this could be one of the main reasons why our National Health Service is under strain, as reported daily on the Media. If the doctor was correct in his estimation, the lack of bed space within hospitals is not so much of an increase of the ageing population as the large numbers of bitter and resentful hearts. 

For a Christian believer refusing to forgive a transgressor, this carries the risk of debilitating health resulting from emotional stress arising from bitterness and anger. Also he cannot enjoy the fullness of God. True, he will still go to heaven after he dies. But often with the case of embittered Christians, they often experience a premature death, followed by the Judgement Seat of Christ, and to suffer the deprivation of rewards awarded to everyone who obeys the Holy Spirit living within. One near-striking example was the case of Moses. He was so embittered by the rejection thrown at him by his fellow Hebrews (Exodus 2:11-15), that even after forty years in the wilderness, he refuses to fulfil his Hebrew custom to circumcise his son Gershom (Exodus 4:24-26). The Lord was about to slay him, and to face the Judgement Seat, had his wife not quickly intervened. Such is the price for refusing to forgive.

For me to forgive John for any resentment and rejection he has for me will not benefit him. Instead, I'm forgiving him to benefit myself, and this is good advice for anyone who has been wronged and wishes to enjoy his walk with God. Forgive, and let go of the transgressor. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*S. I. McMillen MD None of these Diseases, Marshal, Morgan and Scott, 1963, 14th impression 1980.

I Don't Believe in 'IF' Anymore...

Yes I am aware that for readers approximating my age range, such readers would recognise the above title as that of a song written and sung by Roger Whittaker, released in 1977. But this little word, at least according to what I have experienced, have read about, and listened to, has proven catastrophic over two millennia of Christendom. This is actually a continuation of last week's blog, When I Question My Faith, and continue to examine what I believe in, why, and to try to analyse why atheists believe the way they do.

I can't help but feel sympathetic for the average atheist. Or for that matter, the agnostic too. The main difference between an atheist and an agnostic is that the latter accepts the possibility of God's existence. In turn, the atheist denies his existence altogether. But neither would accept the revelation of God's divine creation as history. My late father was an agnostic. He believed in the existence of God. But he rebuked me, even to the point of teasing, for believing in a young-Earth creation as recent as six millennia in the past, together with the idea of a talking snake, and the thought of a shoreless ocean annihilating a whole race of men and air-breathing animals alike. Ahem. And not to mention a talking donkey rebuking a mad prophet who had dollar signs in his eyes! Not long after my conversion, and still living at home, Dad saw me read a Bible that was given to him by a Jehovah's Witness back in the 1950's. So indeed it was quite an old copy, a King James version with two columns of cross-references, one on both edges of each page. For up to twenty years this particular copy of the Bible sat at our bookshelf, totally undisturbed as it was squeezed between other books on both sides. But that particular day, after a few months reading it, Dad took the Bible out of my hands and with anger, literally tore it to shreds right in front of me.

Of course, I was horrified, and also suffered a terrible loss. Not long after, when our Catholic priest came round to have a talk to me, I agreed to attend his church on Sundays. So for a short while I started attending. This pleased both my parents and it seemed to bring peace to the household at last. But I did not feel at home in a Catholic church, and it was not long before I left, to attend a live Anglican Church in Brixton, South London, much to the disappointment of my parents. But the point is that such disagreement among Christian worshippers is fuel thrown to the fires of atheism. And to my confusion too, back in those days.

And this blog was written just a day after a terrorist incident at an Underground train in West London, where a bomb planted in one of the carriages was only partially detonated, and flash-burning every passenger who was unfortunate enough to be close to the bomb. The device failed to detonate properly. Had it, then there would have been a high number of deaths within the train, and for those further away, plenty more would have been seriously injured. I for one, am convinced that the failure of the bomb to detonate properly was from God's mercy, who imposed a "restriction" on what the device can do. Sure enough, any atheist would burst into laughter at my theory and ask why if God was able to restrict the explosion, then why not prevent it entirely? Really, was God's hand simply not long enough to have prevented the detonation altogether?

The Islamic terrorist, in turn would have asked the opposite question. After carrying out his duty so faithfully, why had Allah let him down so badly? Didn't his deity inspire his prophet Mohammed to have all unbelievers and apostates slain? Then further confusion arises, especially among the unchurched, that Yahweh and Allah is perceived as the one true merciful God, worshipped and adored by Christians and Muslims alike, according to the Vatican. Yet no matter how hard I try, I have found it to be impossible to reconcile Yahweh, who sent his Son to atone for our sins, with a son-less deity who is bent on murder, terrorism, and revenge. And yet despite such difficulty in reconciling the two entities, I can still conjure up an image of Jerusalem in my mind. A city I'm already very familiar with, having spent some time of my life there. The Old City is divided into three monotheistic religions - Muslim, Jewish, and Christian. Even the Christian section of the city is sub-divided, with the Armenians having their own Quarter, making four Quarters altogether. The other Christian Quarter has in it Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Coptic churches, along with a Lutheran church, and an Anglican church just inside Jaffa Gate. Among all of them, the concept of Eternal Security of the Believer is relatively unknown, even if both the Anglican and Lutheran churches are perceived to be closer to Biblical truth than the other churches, which tend to lean more on custom and traditions.    

And this I can testify. I attended services at Christ Church Anglican, close to the gate, on several occasions. Behind the pulpit, the twin tablets on which the Decalogue is displayed remains in full view. And they insist on the historicity of Holy Scripture. That was why I felt that I belonged there whilst I was living in Jerusalem, even if I didn't agree with everything they taught. Oh, how short the walk was along Souq David, from my hostel to the church, passing shops open for business, Arab shopkeepers constantly beckoning passing tourists, along with the banter of daily life. Yet as I saunter through the Medieval streets of the Old City, here was the one city which was home to three different monotheistic religions - all three teaching that faith without works is dead, and that the believer, whether Islamic, Jewish or Christian, must work to a greater or lesser degree to secure his salvation. Unfortunately for the Muslims, this entry into Paradise after death often involve jihad, or holy war, where many are slain to promote Allah and to convert to the writings of the Koran, which all Muslims believe to be written under Allah's inspiration, and therefore free from error.

Christ Church, Jerusalem - interior.

Exactly like we as Christians accept the Bible to be free from error. Then you as a Christian, reading this, how would you feel if I was to say that the Bible isn't free from error, but instead contains some inconsistencies? Yes, you read that right. Would you instantly click off from this page and go elsewhere, dismissing me as an apostate or liberal? Before you do, let me ask you to read on and consider these inconsistencies:

Such as Matthew 27:9-10. Here the apostle cites an Old Testament prophecy, and saying it was a quote from Jeremiah. But actually he was quoting from Zechariah 11:12. Then we have Mark declaring that Jesus was crucified "in the third hour" - that is nine o'clock in the morning (Mark 15:25), whilst Matthew writes that by the sixth hour, that is midday, Jesus was already on the cross, and it was then it began to get dark (Matthew 27:45), with Luke fully agreeing with Matthew's testimony (Luke 23:44). However, John has Jesus still standing in front of Pilate's judgement seat at midday (John 19:14). Where there might have been some collaboration between Matthew and Luke with Mark's testimony, yet it does seem rather stretching to believe that Jesus was already crucified by nine in the morning, especially if Luke records Pilate sending Jesus to Herod sometime in between. And only Luke records this visit to Herod's palace. Furthermore, we are not told how long Jesus stood before Herod. It could have been as long as an hour. Then considering the slow movement of the crowds, along with the bustling and confusion, allowing up to thirty minutes each way to make the journey across Jerusalem, which means there have, most likely, been a break in Pilate's judgement for up to two hours, making John's testimony of Jesus still standing before Pilate at midday more credible.

But the rather wide inconsistency between Mark's testimony and that of John's testimony in the timing of the crucifixion still remains. Then again, I have little idea when exactly in the morning was Jesus escorted to Pilate's palace by the Jews. But all four seem to agree that it was early morning, most likely shortly after daybreak, which would have been sometime between six and seven o'clock. If that was the case, then Mark's testimony of a nine o'clock crucifixion does hold some plausibility. But that still does not explain the inconsistency between Mark and John.

Then there is another apparent inconsistency which can still baffle many to this day, and which I had difficulty in coping with. Consider these verses:

Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt that we prepare for thee to eat the Passover? 
And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the Passover at thy house with my disciples.
And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and they made ready the Passover.
Matthew 26:17-19, also Mark 14:12-17, and Luke 22:7-14.

Yet John says:

Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgement: and it was early; and themselves went not into the judgement hall, lest they should be defiled; but they might eat the Passover.
Pilate then went out to them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
John 18:28-29. All quotes from the AV.

If I, who had read the Bible for over forty years, still find these conflicting verses difficult to grasp and reconcile, how would a new convert to the faith feel when he comes across such contradictions? And how would the atheist gloat, grinning from cheek to cheek with glee? Many church-goers don't seem to be aware of such contradictions, and if they are aware, they tend to sweep them under the carpet and pretend that's it's not a problem. But as I see it, where atheists are concerned, these contradictions present a massive problem for us who may want to witness to them and verify the historicity of Holy Scripture. And the trouble is, many of these atheists are not Biblical ignorant. They can open the Bible and read out these verses and we can only hide our blushes by cupping our faces in our hands.

The Bible is messy. It often does not appear so straightforward. Take another example of apparent contradiction. In Romans 8:38-39, Paul assures us that we are eternally secure in our salvation, and nothing can separate us from the love of God through Jesus Christ. And that is not only confined to man's persuasion to think otherwise, but not even demons, nor "powers in the air" nor height or depth, nor anything in the whole of creation can separate us from the love of God. Then flick through a couple of pages, and you see Paul's warning that we as non-Jews are likened to branches of a wild olive tree which were grafted into the cultivated olive tree. Then he warns us not to be conceited, or else we too will be broken off, just as the unbelieving Jews were (Romans 11:16-22). Here, in the very same letter, the apostle first reassures us that we are eternally secure in Christ, then afterwards we are to fear of becoming disenfranchised from God if we become too high minded. Then turn over some more pages until you come to Paul's letter to the church in Colossae. After discussing such glorious promises in partaking in the Resurrection of the just, Paul then concludes:

In the body of the flesh through death, to present you holy and unblamable and unreproveable in his sight:
If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister.
Colossians 1:22-23.

And considering many more similar verses scattered across the whole New Testament, people has come up to me with the explanation that yes indeed, we as believers are eternally secure in Christ, and no one can take our salvation away from us, no, not even the spiritual realm of demonic powers in the air. But as long as you must yourself remain in the faith. According to them, you remain safe in Jesus Christ if you don't voluntarily walk away from the faith, or else it's hell after death. And they quote these and other similar Scriptures to prove their point.

I have looked upon history to see for myself the fruits of such a train of thinking. And all I could see was apostasy and the rise of iniquity among those who professed to have lived in a "Christian country". The Popes of Rome, for example, along with many of the Cardinals and of the clergy, were the most wicked men to have ever walked the earth! Cases of prostitution, adultery, paedophilia, murder, suppression, exorbitance, betrayal, conquest, the Inquisition with its many cases of physical torture, and many more crimes are forever etched into the history of the Roman Catholic Church spanning the centuries. And mainly, in my mind, due to the concept of the sinner "doing penitence" instead of just changing the mind about Jesus Christ being the risen Christ, the Son of God. Doing penance is the core of Catholic catechism. The process is to eradicate sin before the believer can be justified, and if sin is not eradicated, then there is little or no hope of heaven in the afterlife.

Church of St. Peter, the Vatican.

Yet despite of all this, the Bible is messy, and the atheist knows this. What I find by reading Holy Scriptures is that Prophecy, which is scattered throughout the entire Bible. By being extremely accurate in predicting events which took place even thousands of years after the prophecy was given, thus advocating the omniscience of God. And here is the crunch. If a "saved" person can simply walk away from the faith, then wouldn't the "omniscient God" be aware of this to begin with? Or to put it another way, would an all-knowing God make any effort to save a person if he already knows that that person will one day fall away? And what kind of gift is that apostate is to the one who suffered so painfully on a cross? A "naff" gift? Can't this all-knowing God choose properly? And to add to this, consider the spiritual realm. If a person "voluntary walks away" from the hand of Jesus Christ who is supposed to be holding him secure (John 10:28-30), then to walk away means that he must be going somewhere, no doubt to a more attractive location. And who is showing him that location? The Devil? If so, then the Adversary is stronger than God himself and it has also proved God to be a liar.

Questions, questions...

And yet, the Scriptures does look as if such contradictions exist in them. Free from error? There are times when I have pondered. Really, I have! I have to admit, even to myself, that I don't think that I could stand up against an atheist who knows the Bible well. Not unless I possess a Greater Power within who can not only take the knocks, but can deliver answers which would refute the atheist's every question, proving once and for all that this Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the risen Christ, and God manifest in the flesh.

And with such a manifestation of the Glory of God, in Christ I rest my case.