.

 1.

BACK

~

 A Pictorial Biography of C. H. Spurgeon  VIEW PAGE

 CLICK HERE for Larger Image Samples

London England's famous "Prince of Preachers" (1834-1892), this brief and exciting biography is based on the larger and more comprehensive C. H. Spurgeon's AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and includes dozens of high-quality photographs from the period — probably the best available in book form today.

.

.

.

BACK

~

.

.

.

BACK

~

A strong defense and rebuke against David K. Bernard's "Oneness Pentecostal" attacks on historic christianity [including the recent foundation and history of the "Oneness" Movement / United Pentecostal Church], as well as an exhaustive exposition on the Doctrine of Jesus Christ's ETERNAL Sonship. A book entitled THE ONENESS OF GOD (written by Bernard) has come to my attention. The book seeks to prove the "Oneness" theory that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are actually only "titles, roles, manifestations, designations," etc for the one GOD. In other words, by Trinitarian standards, the book completely denies the reality of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit as "persons." To Mr. Bernard, these are only titles or roles. Instead of believing "these three are one," Bernard instead believes "this one is three roles." (see 1 John 5:7 — I am not entering the controversy on the authenticity of this passage, as Mr. Bernard has tried to expound it without favoring a particular view of textual criticism.)

Had Bernard simply confined his book to asserting and defending his views, I would have no interest in making any comments about the book; however, as is inherent with a peculiar concept which is an antithesis to another concept, its advocate finds it necessary to discredit the opposite position. It is in this area of discreditation of the Trinity that I find objectionable and fallacious material in Bernard's book. The weakness of the book is most obvious at this point, and perhaps this weakness also indicates the indefensible character of the "Oneness" doctrine itself, although I am willing to concede that foibles of a professed believer of a doctrine do not necessarily indict the doctrine.

The Bible doctrine about God, as well as God's revelation of Himself in Creation, has suffered at the hands of carnal reasoning since the fall of man (Romans 1:18-25). The mind of man in its fallen condition presents a very formidable obstacle to his coming to a complete knowledge of the truth (2 Corinthians 10:5). Although we often say, "I don't see how" some person or group can believe, or not believe, a particular concept, we are plainly told by the word of God that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED" (1 Cor. 2:14), and "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7). See also Ephesians 4:17-19.

Christians are warned of their own problem of possible deception: "That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. 4:14). In fact, Christians are warned of "false Christs and false prophets" who, if it were possible, would seduce and deceive "the very elect" (Mark 13:22, Matthew 24:24).

CHRIST, the Primary Target

While all of God's truth has been and continues to be assaulted by those who "speak evil of those things which they know not" (Jude 10), it seems the central target of "false teachers" (2 Peter 2:1) is the Person and Work of our Lord. "Denying the Lord" (2 Peter 2:1) "denying the Son" (1 John 2:23) seems to be the favorite endeavor of those who are intent upon "beguiling unstable souls" (2 Peter 2:14). This is not surprising, since Satan himself, the "father of the lie" (John 8:44), mounted a personal and direct attack against the Lord Jesus at His birth and on through His earthly life (Revelation 12:4, Matthew 2:13, 4:1-11). Satan had no success in his efforts at tempting the Son of God, so now he is set upon distorting, perverting, and setting aside the Word of God (Mark 7:1-13, Isaiah 8:20, 1 Timothy 4:1-2, 5:15).

When we read the epistles, we find Christ was attacked in early apostolic times. His RESURRECTION was denied (Matthew 28:12-15). His DEITY was denied (2 John 7). His promised RETURN was denied (2 Peter 3:4). His gospel of GRACE was denied (Galatians 1:1-9, 3:1, 6:12-14). Perhaps no attribute of His person is free of the undermining advocates of "philosophy, vain deceit, the tradition of men and science falsely so-called" (Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:20).

— (above) Excerpted from the Introduction (in Chapter 1)

IN REVIEW, The Baptist Evangel (May 1993), by Editor Jack Warren

This book is not only an answer to the Oneness Pentecostal denial of the Trinity and the eternal Sonship of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, but it is also a great treatise on the Doctrine of the Trinity. There are 21 chapters, discussing Pentecostal attacks on the Trinity and eternal Sonship, and an appendix on John 1:18. Dr. Ross does not just present the negative aspect of the problem, but he also includes chapters on: God's decree in Psalms 2:7 and the word "begotten" from other scriptures; the Son of God as the Word and Wisdom of God; the triune Elohim of the Old Testament; the views of historic Christianity, the everlasting Father of Isaiah 9:6, understanding the Trinity, and a chapter on the Sonship of Christ by Andrew Fuller.

I have never read a better revelation of and denunciation of Pentecostals as Brother Ross does in this book. He gives a thorough history of Oneness Pentecostalism from its beginning and shows how their doctrine of "Jesus only" sprang from man's thinking rather than from the Word of God. He reveals the immorality and sexual aberrations of the founder of the Pentecostal Movement — Charles Parham — and others; such as A. A. Allen and Jimmy Swaggart.

Bob Ross shows what the following abnormalities have in common: egomania, paranoia, schizophrenia, and psychopathic behavior. He shows the deceitfulness of Pentecostalism's teaching on tongues, healing and baptismal regeneration. And he shows how much like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Campbellites, and other cults, the Pentecostals are.

He says of the Oneness Pentecostals —

"... the 'Oneness' curse is a rebuke to the false claims of the whole Wesleyan-Arminian scheme of theology which magnifies the subjective experiences of man over the objective revelation of Divine truth." He says: "With its emphasis upon the will of man as the foundation of its theology, the Wesleyan movement developed its concept of holiness along the lines of the improvement of the flesh, ultimately arriving at the conclusion that carnality can be completely eradicated through a 'second work of grace,' erroneously called 'sanctification.' "

While he does not say they are Pentecostal in doctrine, Dr. Ross also discusses the view on the Sonship of Christ held by fellow trinitarians John MacArthur, Walter Martin, J. Oliver Buswell, as well as Adam Clarke's commentary and the Dake Bible.

A very important chapter is called, "Onenites Misrepresent Early History; Baptismal 'Formula' Is Unscriptural." In this chapter, Ross discusses the historical position on the Trinity of the church fathers, such as: Polycarp, Clement, Mathetes, Ignatius and others.

In a chapter on the views of "Historic Christianity," Ross quotes from the Westminster Confession, the London Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, the New Hampshire Confession and many others. On Christ as the begotten Son of God, he quotes many theologians, including: Augustus H. Strong, John Gill, C. H. Spurgeon, A. T. Robertson, B. B. Warfield, and others.

THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT BOOK. It challenges attacks made by Pentecostalism, Adam Clark, and others, on the Biblical teaching of the deity of Christ.

.

.

BACK

~

PREFACE:

The last bastion of "unity" in the "CHURCH OF CHRIST" (so-called) segment of the 19th century "Restoration Movement," which was originally a "reform" and "unity" endeavor launched by Thomas Campbell in 1809-1812, is the practice of a cappella singing as the exclusive 'music' in congregational worship.

Despite idealistic mottos and well-worn slogans which embellish the concept of "one church" in all aspects of faith and practice, the "pioneer" leaders who laid down the "old paths" and conceived the "patterns" in the 1812-1850 era would no doubt be astonished at the lack of cohesion which characterizes late 20th century "restorationism." Men such as father Campbell, Alexander Campbell (the son), Walter Scott, Barton Stone, Jacob Creath, John Smith, and the other early proselytes from the Presbyterians and Baptists, would perhaps launch a "new and improved" reform-and-unity movement were they on the scene today. Perhaps no professing Christian entity, indigenous to America, has more "splinters" than the "RESTORATIONISTS." There are even "splinters" within the "splinters."

The two broad "branches" of the movement developed after the introduction of "mechanical instruments of music" in the 1850's. The pro-instrument segment was primarily the northern churches while the anti's were dominant in the South. The controversy was a "family quarrel" in the early stages, each "side" viewing the other as "brethren." As the crevice widened, the consequences of "error" were perceived and pronounced to be of weighty significance — even SALVATION itself was "on the line" in the minds of many.

By the 1900's, the "lines" were distinctly drawn — two "parties" had crystallized: the "Christian Church" (or "Disciples of Christ") and the "Churches of Christ." The former was the leading party of the northern states, and the latter was the scourge against musical instruments south of the Mason-Dixon line. Names such as McGarvey, Lipscomb, Kurfees, and Hardeman became veritable "legends" in "restoration" history relating to "the instrument question." There was no doctrine or practice which became more "symbolic" of Church of Christ unity than their "sing only" worship.

The "five-acts-of-worship" segment had no place for an organ or piano except for repeated condemnation! Next to Acts 2:38 on baptism, Ephesians 5:19 on music became a primary "foundational" block in Church of Christ nomenclature. Since the clear-cut division of the pro-instrument and anti-instrument segments, the Churches of Christ have had several "splinterings" over many different "issues," but their UNITY in opposition to instrumental music remains rather constant. Only in recent times has there been any noticeable "digression" on this, and even those cases apparently represent a very low percentage of congregations. However, with the rise of the "NEW HERMENEUTIC" in some schools, congregations, and publications, the "last bastion" of that "wall of separation" between Churches of Christ and "denominationalism" may be destined for serious puncture in days ahead.

This current book represents the first major "assault" on that "wall" by a Baptist writer in many years. Although I have had several debates with anti-music adherents, for some reason this issue has never been "front-and-center" — rather, it has been peripheral, a mere "incidental" which is sometimes mentioned. In recent times, certain events have combined to motivate my giving this matter a more intense analysis, and I am confident that his small work will prove to be of devastating effects to the anti-music position, not only to Churches of Christ but also to the Primitive Baptist ("HARDSHELL") denomination, which is opposed to instrumental music.

I have read much of the anti-music literature and have endeavored to meet their "strongest arguments." I do not find that they have dealt with many of the arguments which I present, so they may find it necessary to do some "digging" to reinforce the wall of "sing only." Any of this group who wishes to debate the subject — publicly or in a publication — is invited to contact me; however, I do not engage in a waste-of-time "letter debates" of a private nature. Such a confrontation requires a "third party" audience to merit the time and attention of this writer.

.

.

BACK

~

The various roles of the Campbells along with Walter Scott and Barton W. Stone are clearly detailed from "Campbellian" writings and biographies. Did these men actually "restore" the Gospel, the Church, and true New Testament worship, as they claim, or did they simply create another sect bent on a more dogmatic sectarianism than others they renounced? Dogmatically exclusive, the hard-line "conservative" Campbellites claim they are the only Christians and that you must be dipped in water or be damned in hell! They claim that they and they only are the "Church of Christ." They further claim that unless you are in their church, you are not in Christ, hence cannot be in a saved state. And they claim only their "church" wears the "CORRECT BIBLE NAME," performs the only true "Bible worship," forbid and condemn any musical instruments in worship, and many other nonsensical views. The "anti-organ" segment of the Campbellite movement even goes so far as to claim salvation for only those who are members of their self-styled "Church of Christ." According to Campbellite interpretation of doctrine, the very men responsible for the "Reformation" (16th century) were never saved, as they were never baptized "in order to obtain remission of sins!"

And what of their theory of discovering "baptismal remission of sins" that led to the "practical restoration" of the "ancient gospel"? Do the often quoted verses such as Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 prove their interpretation? This book reveals the origin and refutes the ERRORS of the "Church of Christ" sect. [Every plant, which my heavenly Father hat not planted, shall be rooted up. Matthew 15:13]

PREFACE:

The CAMPBELLITES claim that you must be dipped in water or be damned in hell. They claim that they and they only are the "Church of Christ." They furthur claim that unless you are in the "Church of Christ" you are not in Christ, hence cannot be in a saved state. They claim that they wear the "Bible name." They claim that they only perform "Bible worship."

But we shall show in the following pages that the Campbellite movement had its inception with Thomas and Alexander Campbell, and that the doctrines and practices of the Campbellite movement have been "brought aboard" at various times since its beginning. We shall not merely assert this, but shall call to witness the records of the Campbellites themselves. The one thing we have found that Campbellites hate most is the truth about their historical background; this is the one thing we shall attempt to present the clearest, for it is the truth about the Campbellite origin that so definitely exposes this movement as the counterfeit that it really is.

One fact in particular which should be continually kept in mind as you read this book, is that none of the men primarily responsible for the origin of the Campbellite church was ever baptized according to the present Campbellite doctrine of baptismal regeneration. We shall show from the historical records of the Campbellites themselves that THOMAS CAMPBELL, ALEXANDER CAMPBELL, WALTER SCOTT, and BARTON W. STONE — the "big four" of Campbellite history — were never immersed to "wash away sins." Remember this fact as you read of the Campbellite church's history, for it renders Campbellism the most inconsistent religious movement on the face of the earth today. As a matter of fact, according to Campbellite doctrine, the very men responsible for the "Reformation" were never saved, as they were never baptized to obtain remission of sins!

.

.

BACK

~

EXCERPT:

The noted Baptist scholar of the 19th century, Alvah Hovey, in the Appendix to his commentary on the Gospel of John, remarks that John 3:5 "has probably been appealed to oftener than any other text of Scripture in support of" the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. However, the nineteenth century religious movement led by Alexander Campbell, which referred to itself as the "Restoration Movement," developed the theory of the baptismal remission of sins, and the verse most often appealed to in support of this position is Acts 2:38.

The interpretation placed upon this verse of Scripture might well be called the "chief cornerstone" of this movement which is more commonly known by the nickname of "CAMPBELLISM." [While the term "Campbellism," or "Campbellite," is used in this book (and other books I've written about the movement), it is not used as a term of reproach, but in the encyclopedic sense and for theological distinction, such as the terms "Arminian," "Calvinist," "Lutheran," "Wesleyan," etc.]

Alexander Campbell, one of the men who "discovered" the water gospel, but never obeyed it, stated that baptism for the remission of sins is "the all-important evangelical fact," (and stated as "baptism for cleansing"), meaning the REAL remission of sins. According to the claims of these Restorationists, Acts 2:38 was the primary verse that led to the "practical restoration" of the "ancient gospel" (later called the "Gospel Plan," with emphasis on the "baptismal remission of sins"). Supposedly, this restoration took place under the ministry of Walter Scott on November 18, 1827 (see Memoirs of Alexander Campbell Vol 2, pages 207-214), as the theory of baptismal remission was formulated previously in its earliest stages during the period of 1820-1823.

Probably to most professing Christians of evangelical convictions, the idea of baptismal remission, as advocated by Campbellism, is considered to be the same as, or equivalent to, baptismal regeneration. However, Campbellism does not hold the evangelical concept of regeneration (or the "new birth"), and therefore denies that it teaches baptismal regeneration. So, the real core of controversy on Acts 2:38 is the question: in what sense does baptism remit sins? Acts 2:38 clearly relates baptism to the remission of sins; the Greek word "eis" ('for') indicates such relationship. The one great significant question that arises (as put by Alexander Campbell) is: "In what sense is baptism for the remission of sins?" Campbellism holds that a real remission of sins is obtained at the point of immersion in water. Baptism is "an instrumental cause" of salvation, according to Campbell — a real, literal remission of sins in the act of baptism — rather than a metaphorical, ceremonial remission.

If the Campbellite position be correct, it means that God has attached an efficacy to baptism that is nowhere attached to any other ordinance or ceremony in the entire Bible. No act of obedience, in the form of an ordinance, ever had Divine efficacy related to it to the extent that the obedient party obtained a literal remission of sins. The ANIMAL SACRIFICES of the Old Testament, although called "atonements" in numerous places (such as Leviticus 1:4), were only typical, rather than real atonements. Being representations of the Christ who would come, they were called "atonements," but we have it on Divine authority that they did not secure a literal remission of sins, as the writer of Hebrews informs us in Chapter 10:1-14, and Chapter 9:9-12.

These sacrifices, therefore, while called "atonements," did not take away sin. This was an accomplishment which only Christ could bring to pass. When Christ affirmed that His blood was shed "for the remission of sins," there are numerous passages which justify the conclusion that He had reference to a literal remission (Hebrews 9:26, Galatians 3:13, 1 Peter 2:24 and 3:18); therefore, if His death were for the purpose of literally remitting sins, animal sacrifices could not have been for that purpose, neither could any other ordinance be for that purpose.

The LORD'S SUPPER, a New Testament observance, is regarded by evangelicals as a memorial ("remembrance") of our Lord's death. Terminology used in referring to this ordinance could easily be separated from the whole tenor of Scripture and perverted into sacramentalism, as is illustrated by Roman Catholicism's "MASS." The words of Christ, when He took the bread, "This is my body," and His words when He took the cup, "This is my blood" (Matthew 26:26-28), are used to establish the Romish idea of transubstantiation, which is the claim that the bread and wine are really the body and blood of Christ. Yet, only in the metaphorical sense is this the case. Obviously, Christ used the bread and wine representatively, as being only tokens of His flesh and blood. Augustus H. Strong comments: "'this is my body' means 'this is the symbol of my body.' Since Christ was with the disciples in visible form at the institution of the Supper, he could not have intended them to recognize the bread as being his literal body."

If such literal terminology is used of the Lord's Supper, yet is understood by all but sacramentalists to be metaphorical in nature, it is a parallel to the sacrifices of the Old Testament in this respect. While the language is literal, the meaning is obviously metaphorical.

Is BAPTISM, another New Testament ordinance, to be considered differently than Old Testament ordinances and the New Testament ordinance of the Lord's Supper? If there is some literal terminology to the effect that baptism remits sins (Acts 2:38), washes away sins (Acts 22:16) and saves (1 Peter 3:21), where is the justification for understanding this language to imply a Divine efficacy related to baptism that is not related to the animal sacrifices and the Lord's Supper? The Campbellite quibble that there is no efficacy in baptism, as such, is beside the point. There was no efficacy in the blood of animal sacrifices, but they were called "atonements" — yet the New Testament ways they never "put away sin." They were types of Christ, that and nothing more.

Similarly, baptism is called a "likeness" (Romans 6:4-6) and a "figure" (1 Peter 3:21). If an Old Testament ordinance were an "atonement," yet only typically so, how can a New Testament ordinance, which is said to "remit sin," literally do what the former ordinance could not do? IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT CHRIST LITERALLY PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF; THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE PERFORMED AGAIN BY AN "OBEDIENT" ACT OF MAN. If the Old Testament ordinance were only a typical atonement, it follows that the New Testament ordinance could be no more, and must be only a typical remission.

H. B. Hackett in his remarks on Acts 22:16, makes the sense of baptism clear: "This clause states a result of baptism in language derived from the NATURE of that ordinance. It answers to 'for the remission of sins,' in Acts 2:38, i.e. submit to the rite in order to be forgiven. In both passages (22:16, 2:38) baptism is represented as having this importance or efficacy, because it is THE SIGN of the repentance and faith where are the conditions of salvation." — H. B. Hackett, An American Commentary on the New Testament (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1882), Vol 4. p. 258, all caps emphasis by Bob L. Ross.

Hackett considered baptism to be "in order to" remission in the sense of a "sign." By reference to the "nature" of the ordinance, it is obvious he understands baptism to have a nature other than that indicated by the mere terminology itself. Baptists have always considered baptism to be in order to the remission of sins in the sense taught by Hackett, so no concession at all is made to the Campbellite position. A. T. Robertson comments: "A SYMBOL IS NOT THE REALITY, BUT THE PICTURE OF THE REALITY."

J. R. Mantey makes the following observation: "When one considers in Acts 2:38 repentance as self-renunciation and baptism as a public expression of self-surrender and self-dedication to Christ (which significance it certainly had in the first century), the expression 'eis aphesin ton hamartion human' may mean for the purpose of the remission of sins. But if one stresses baptism, without its early Christian import — as a ceremonial means of salvation — he does violence to Christianity as a whole, for one of its striking distinctions from Judaism and Paganism is that it is a religion of salvation by faith, while all others teach salvation by works. — H. E. Dana and J. R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: MacMillan Company, 1948), p. 104, italicized emphasis by Bob L. Ross

.

.

BACK

~

Mr. Ross had prepared some materials for distribution, but the Restorationists, ala "Church of Christ", would not agree to permit it. Despite the fact that the materials all pertained to the propositions and would be introduced by Mr. Ross in his speeches, they were met with adamant opposition. Prior to the debate, Mr. Ross had carefully examined the contents of The Spiritual Sword Magazine, edited by Thomas Warren and Garland Elkins, and had compiled many devastating quotations, exposing the errors of RESTORATIONISM. Originally these materials were available in two magazine-like booklets, but now they are published in the paperback format.

The Restoration Movement, or "Campbellites," were led by Thomas and Alexander Campbell (as mentioned above). Though originating from within the Presbyterian Church in the early 1800's, this movement found more fertile ground in the Redstone and Mahoning Baptist Associations along the Ohio River, south of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The movement divided into three major segments: the "Disciples of Christ," "Churches of Christ," and the "Christian Church" (independent). Emphasis is placed up baptism as being essential to salvation, as Restorationism teaches a view of regeneration which is regarded by Baptists as "THE WORD ALONE" theory. If you are interested in the history, doctrines, and claims of Restorationism, you will find this book of great value.

.

.

BACK

~

.

.

.

BACK

~

The Bible is a dangerous book! That may sound rather strange, yet Peter plainly says (2 Peter 3:15-16) that some wrest the Scriptures, to their own destruction. And human experience reveals this to be so: many go to hell, stumbling over verses of Scripture which have been perverted, twisted, distorted, misapplied, and misused. Sadly, yet to many, the Bible is only a means of heaping condemnation upon condemnation. As Paul said of the Gospel, it is the "saviour of death unto death" (2 Corinthians 2:16).

The doctrines clearly taught in the Bible relating to the sovereignty of God, referred to in religious circles as "Calvinism," also as "the doctrines of grace," are also doctrines of the Book that are the occasion for many people "choking" on the Word. The misuse and abuse of these divinely inspired doctrines will deaden and kill. Babes in Christ, unless taught properly, most likely will rebel against these truths, else be misled and their spiritual lives twisted. We know nothing so deadening to spirituality as to run into hyper-Calvinism as a result of a distorted faith regarding the sovereignty of God and related doctrines.

Hyper-Calvinism and the misuse of Calvinism will kill a number of things in the Christian, in the preacher, and in churches. It will kill: gospel preaching to the lost, prayer, a grateful spirit, daily watchfulness, responsibility to truth, etc.

.

.

BACK

~

Landmarkism involves the authenticity of a church as an organization, the administration and administrator of baptism, and the ordination of ministers. It is asserted that a church is unscriptural, baptism is invalid, and ministers are not duly ordained unless there is proper Church Authority for them. This is Landmarkism's "chief cornerstone." Some writers of the past referred to this position as "high churchism." Consequently, the Landmark view is that Baptist Churches ALONE have the authority of Christ to evangelize, baptize and carry out all aspects of the commission.

The system further involves the perpetuity, succession, or continuity of Baptist churches through which authority has descended through the ages and will continue. This position, though not uniformly defined among Landmarkers, is believed to have been taught by Christ in such verses as Matthew 16:18, 28:19-20. While Landmarkers in general profess either an inability to demonstrate the succession or no necessity of doing so, their efforts to advocate their system of "church truth" are almost invariably characterized by several quotations from secondary sources and their own respected authors, supposedly establishing the historical claim.

Generally therefore, they believe that 1) the true and scriptural organization of a church, 2) the valid administration of baptism, & 3) the proper ordination of a gospel minister, MUST all be enacted upon the authority of a sound and true, scriptural church — namely, a church that was born through the authority of a "mother" church — continuing in like manner back to the original apostolic church of Matthew 28 where "church authority" first "began".

In refuting these errors, Baptists and other Christians today can believe in the continuity of Christianity since Christ and may devote themselves to regulating their faith and practice by the Scriptures (in an orderly manner) without adhering to the Landmark teachings of church authority and succession. The authority which validates baptism, or any other scriptural action of our time, does not reside in the church institution any more than does the authority which validates salvation itself; authority resides in Jesus Christ and is expressed in His Word. The church itself is dependent upon this authority, but this authority is not dependent upon the church. This book advocates no new or novel views in opposition to Landmarkism. The first Confession of Faith set forth by English Particular Baptists is the well-known Confession of 1644, and in Article 41 it states: "The persons designed by Christ, to dispense this ordinance (baptism), the Scriptures hold forth to be a preaching disciple, it being no where tied to a particular church, officer, or person extraordinarily sent, the commission enjoining the administration, being given to them under no other consideration, but as considered disciples."

Landmarkism, as a system, is of relatively recent origin among the Baptists, although various items in the system have been obvious at certain times in our history. But at least not until J. R. Graves popularized all of the related concepts in systematic form did a significant segment of Baptists finally become a fragmentation from other Baptists (in the Preface of his book, Old Landmarkism — What Is It?, Graves takes credit for "inaugurating the reform" which became known as Landmarkism). May this book assist all who read it to see Landmarkism in its proper perspective among the Baptists.

.

.

BACK

~

.

.

BACK

~

A "LITTLE HORN" study with "LATTER DAY" comparison to Iraq's SADDAM HUSSEIN.

NOT ONE STONE presents what the writer believes to be a "reasonable parallel" between Saddam Hussein and the "Little Horn" of Daniel 11:21-45, consisting of 25 chapters, most of which were written in the immediate months following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990, into the Gulf War of 1991. This book holds that Arab history from the 7th century to the 20th century is conceivably sketched in Daniel 11:5-20. There is a chapter on the recent PLO-Israeli Agreement of 9/13/93.

Although the writer is a "pre-mill," he disagrees with most all the pre-mill concepts on Daniel. He especially refutes the "restored Roman Empire" and "ECC" concepts, as well as the "Russian Invasion of Israel" theory. He believes Daniel's prophecies have to do with the latter-day Middle East, and that the "toes of iron and clay" depict the divided Arab states which will be over-run by the Little Horn when his appointed time arrives.

Ross is not looking for a rebuilt Jewish Temple and reinstated Animal Sacrifices, but is watching to see what is the fate of the "Wailing Wall," being the remains of the original Temple of Jesus' time and which now is the "holy place" of Jewish worship. He holds that the "casting down" of the Wall and the placing of Islamic flags over this area could conceivably be the fulfillment of what is called "the abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15).

These writings have already become controversial in prophetic study and it is likely that in book form they will spark even more comment. In view of Saddam's survival of the Gulf War and his continual skirting of U.N. sanctions, the author's views are now being regarded by some as "not so farfetched after all." One need only consider that if Saddam Hussein gets nuclear weapons, WHAT then? Could he become the Middle East "Little Horn" who is to conquer Israel and the surrounding region?

Current news reports indicate Iraq is smoothing things out with the U.N. and will soon be "back in business." Saddam reportedly has "BILLION$" stashed away and has hired Russian scientists to work for him. What lies ahead?

.