Dr. Ian Paisley has ministered for over fifty years in Northern Ireland, protested Roman Catholicism, is a member of two or three parliaments -- the European Parliament and the British Parliament -- is very much like a John Knox. He is one of those rare thundering preachers, honest and true politicians and serious writers. God has certainly raised up this man as a defender of the Christian faith.

He has written perhaps the simplest, clearest and most easy-to-understand little book of only 111 pages in defense of the King James Version of the Bible.

The back cover reads: "Incomparable in its faithfulness, majestic in its language, and inexhaustible in its spiritual fruitfulness, the English Authorized Version (KJV) continues to reveal to millions the matchless grace of him whose name is THE WORD OF GOD, and who is crowned with glory and honour. In his Plea for the Old Sword, Ian Paisley slays the lie that the Authorized Version is outdated, outmoded, mistranslated and a relic of the past. No other can ever take its place!"

He deals with the underlying texts and English versions which produced it. He deals with the "saintliness and scholarship" of the translators. He shows the "pre-eminent...techniques it employed." He shows the purity and reverence and excellence of the language used. He points out the faithfulness in its unclouded doctrines. He shows God’s providence in its dissemination around the world at a time when England was such a great power. He concludes with the unsurpassably pre-eminent" and bountiful fruits which have been and still are being harvested as a result.

"Robert L. Dabney, the great Presbyterian scholar, was right when he castigated the modern texts upon which the English perversions of his day were based as coming from ‘the mind of infidel rationalism’" (14).

He gives "six facts" from one of David Cloud’s books -- The Battle for the King James Version and the Received Text from 1800 to the Present -- which "have "never budged in the hottest fire of this controversy." (20)

1. The Modern text flows from a stream of apostasy.

2. The manuscripts preferred by modern translators represent a rejected text.

3. The doctrines of inspiration and preservation secure a dependable Bible.

4. The Traditional Received Text is more theologically conservative than the modern critical text.

5. The rejection of the Traditional Received Text and the Authorized King James Version founded on it, has resulted in a multiplicity of modern texts and versions which have eroded the authority of God’s Word.

6. To reject the Received Text and the King James is to reject the old paths" (20)

He shows the attack by modern versions upon doctrinal proof texts in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

"Let us get the matter right. The Bible is not the product of man but the product of God. It is the Word of God. It was not delivered unto the scholars -- Greek, Hebrew or otherwise, but to the saints. ‘The faith which was once delivered to the saints’ Jude 3.

"God has delivered His Book to the custody, not of the scholars, the universities, colleges or seats of learning, but only to His saints.

"Can any ordinary saint who has no knowledge whatever of the original languages know what is a proper version of God’s Word or which is absolutely reliable? The answer is ’yes’ or else Jude verse 3 is error. Jude verse 3 is not error but divinely revealed truth.

"’The attempt to bamboozle the ordinary saints of God with irrelevant controversy must be demonstrated. The ploy to take from the saints their divinely appointed role of custody of the Book and place it in the hands of scholars must be exposed for what it is, a device of the devil himself" (75-76).

"Just the same way as the Church of Rome attacked the translation of the Scripture into what was called the Vulgar Tongue (i.e. the mother tongue of the particular country) today there has been a resurrection of that antagonism by those who have adopted the Romish principle, but applied to a different set of circumstances. They simply rehearse the old Roman argument that no translation can be truly the Word of God" (93).

Paisley goes on to put the caustic, raging and thrice-divorced Peter Ruckman in his place—"This new doctrine called Dual Inspiration which affirms that the process extends to the Authorized Versions known as Ruckmanism, after Dr. Peter Ruckman who popularized this doctrine, had its beginnings in Rome" (102).

He beautifully links Divine Revelation, Divine Inspiration and Divine Preservation as standing or falling together "Those who would deny the need for verbal Preservation cannot be accepted as being really committed to verbal Inspiration. If there is no preserved Word of God today then the work of Divine Revelation and Divine Inspiration has perished" (103).

He concludes with the same admonition with which he began -- Take up and read. "The believer’s responsibility is not to restore the 4th Century text (i.e. Westcott and Hort) through the science of textual criticism (advocates of modern versions), but to receive the providentially preserved words of Christ" (105).

We highly recommend this faithful book, by a faithful author, about our faithful God.

Send ten dollars (which includes: S&H) to:

Emerald House

1Chick Springs Road, Suite 102

Greenville, SC 29609

(or Call, 1-800-209-8570)

Please be sure to specify which book, since he has several.

Emerald House has a quality selection of books and titles which can be found at their Website: www.emeraldhouse.com

"Genesis 18:3-5: The singular and plural forms of the second person pronoun enable readers to tell what part of Abraham’s greeting is directed toward the Lord as leading traveler (verse 3) and what part is addressed to all three travelers (verses 4, 5). This distinction is hard to see in modern translations, which omit ‘thou,’ ‘thee,’ ‘thy,’ ‘thine’ [singular forms] and ‘ye,’ ‘you,’ ‘your,’ ’yours’ [plural forms] as ‘hindrances’ to understanding.

"It is a popular myth that the simpler a language is, the clearer it is: thus, modern Bible versions discard the older second-person pronoun forms as needlessly complex. Actually, the more complex a language is, the better able it is to convey delicate shades of thought and meaning. We should be wary, then, of teachers who both praise the original languages for their complexity and advocate the simplest of English for use in modern translations. The simpler our language becomes, the less able it will be to convey the meaning of the Bible’s original languages, and the more dependent we will be on the insights and comments of modern scholars."

back to top

As some genuine, godly and truly born-again Christians affirm that the wearing of an external covering on a woman’s head is a Scriptural form of submission (not to get into the various groups already mentioned in one of the latest articles) based on their understanding of I Cor. 11, there are some necessary questions which must be answered.

When was this practice instituted in the Bible? Was it an Old Testament requirement, or was it only a New Testament requirement, or both? How do we know?

If only a New Testament requirement. When in the New Testament was it instituted? There is not doubt in the differing views that promote head coverings (to my knowledge) that all believe the custom had already been going on before I Cor. 11 -- "Every woman praying or prophesying..." If so, when did it begin? Why are there no references before Paul to such a custom as part of the local church format, if it were required to be practiced in the New Testament church? Who doubts the church had not already begun before Paul came around, who calls himself "an Apostle born out of due time"? Is he beginning a new practice for the entire church when he writes this, or is he addressing a cultural matter in the Corinthian church?

Also, if a woman’s covering is to show her submission -- whether To God and/or her husband-- why did such symbolism begin in the New Testament, 4,000 years after creation? Were the Old Testament women not to show submission? Did not the Old Testament saints assemble themselves together to hear the Word of the Lord? Did not women pray and prophesy in the Old Testament? Do we not include them in the church which Jesus ransomed with His own blood? Why did their women go uncovered?

If New and Old Testaments: Certainly veils were customary in both Testaments, along with girdles, robes, foot-washing, donkey riding, etc. But if head coverings are more than custom and cultural practice, but are mandatory for the women of local church gatherings, where was the practice instituted in the Old Testament? If anytime after Genesis three, perhaps by Moses, are we to conclude that the women before its institution back to Eve were unsubmissive?

The Scriptures, in detailing God’s taking away Adam and Eve’s fig leaves and giving them coats of skin, fail to mention God’s making a doily, hat, cloth, or any other covering for Eve to show her submission to Adam -- the first man -- Why? Also, if a woman is to have an external covering as "power on her head because of the angels," were there not angels all the way back to Adam and Eve? When the Scripture appeals to a woman’s having long hair, it appeals to nature: "Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair it is a shame unto him, but if a woman have long hair it is a glory unto her; for her hair is given her for a covering?" The only natural appeal is to the hair, not to the cloth, hat, doily, etc. We can be sure then, that God did make Eve with long hair.

When Jesus said, "Ye do err greatly not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." He was giving a comparative statement. To the degree you do not know the Scriptures -- to that degree you will err. All Christians err, because none know the Scriptures with perfect knowledge. Yet, the more we know God’s Word, the less we shall err.

Why is it that the majority of Christians who advocate head coverings must answer with packets of material and systems developed by others? Is it because they cannot answer from the Scripture itself? Do not most people who advocate such a position, do so out of fear and ignorance, not being certain what the passage is talking about, so they go ahead and wear an external covering to play it safe? Is that Scriptural faith? The Bible says, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin."

Playing it safe is not faith in God’s book, even though it has been done by Roman Catholics for centuries! Shall we play it safe and pray to the dead, make the sign of the cross, take pilgrimages -- just in case the advocates for such positions are correct? Packets of material can be produced as well that advocate praying to the dead, making the sign of the cross, etc., but if one cannot answer from the Scriptures, then he is closer to being a sacramentalist, than a just man who walks by faith. "For man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart" (I Samuel 16:7c).

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

A Denomination Becomes Corrupt --

-- When it becomes an end rather than a means

-- When it seeks to rule rather than serve

-- When it becomes directive rather than supportive

-- When it respects personalities more than principles

-- When it seeks power more than purity

-- When it surrenders truth to gain tranquility

-- When it seeks peace over principle

-- When it desires the praise of men rather than the praise of God

-- When it seeks prestige more than piety

-- When theological infidelity is tolerated for expediency

-- When intellectualism is honored more than fidelity

-- When quantity is desired more than quality

-- When numbers are more important than purity

-- When pragmatism is preferred over ethical virtue

(From the Church History lectures of Dr. Edward Panosian, Church History Professor at Bob Jones University, and certainly one of the greatest university professors of this century.)

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

Pastor Fellows is continuing to progress in speech, though slowly. He spends his time working his garden, passing out tracts on the Savannah River Riverwalk, witnessing to drug dealers and addicts that frequent our back alley, and assisting in whatever else he can do. He is still unable to preach or minister by way of speech. A policeman or security guard has already told him that he is not to pass out tracts on the Augusta Riverwalk. Of course, smokers, drinkers, profane, dancers, gamblers, and rock musicians are welcome, but a preacher passing out God’s Word is not welcome. Well, God has given us His permission -- nay, His command -- and we ought to obey God rather than man. We may be summoned to appear before those who would tell us we are not free to practice the one true religion; we may have to endure the judgment of men, but that’s nothing compared with God’s awaiting judgment for the wicked. The Lord has truly blessed us and kept His promises to meet our needs. Our readers may remember the October/November issue of The Angelus, Vol. XXV no. 7, 1996, entitled, "We are Fools for Christ’s Sake." We explained our reasons for not participating in the insurance industry because it is inherently evil, socialistic, etc. For this reason, we did not accept taxpayers’ money offered by the hospital for Pastor Fellows’ bill. Taxpayers should not have to foot our bill.

After about a year of paying what we could from month to month, the same hospital which set the price at about $450,000, decided to lower it to about $40,000. Some will believe and give God the glory; others will continue to doubt. If you think that is a lot, "come and hear, all ye that fear God, and I will declare what he hath done for my soul" (Psalm 66:16).