I
always find it amazing that so many 'reformed men' read and benefit
from the Doctor, yet do not want those who hold the same views to preach
for them. Of course, they would not want Calvin to preach in their
pulpits either. Do such men have blinkers on their eyes when they read
the Doctor's evangelistic sermons, or are they living in some kind of
fool's paradise? Give me the man who is true over the man whom pretends
to be one thing but is altogether something different, any day.
Lloyd-Jones
self-defined as an evangelist, the very thing many of these men are
not. They wrongly imagine that if they can preach and get very few, if
any, conversions, they are somehow faithful to the Gospel. According to
DMLJ, they are not. They are
not evangelicals - the very name says otherwise; they are not
Calvinists; and they are certainly not reformed.
Where have these false ideas come from? Who has been feeding these ministers on a theological diet of evangelical liberalism (see how even language fails me in describing these men)? Their theological professors? Some thinking evangelicals seem to think so. Is it because they approach the Scriptures with a predisposition that precludes allowing Scripture to speak out its own saving message? Where has this filter come from? Who has blinded their eyes so that they do not see the truth?
I think I know why Owenism is the preferred filter: it's because the WCF is Owenite rather than Calvinistic, or biblical. I believe that Owenism is the greatest contributor to liberalism in the churches and more so than the German theologians. One just has to look at generations of PCI ministers who all signed the WCF, claiming that this is what they believed. The ministers I had in my home congregation were all WCF men, but there was no Gospel preached by most of them. Look at the elders within PCI who have destroyed many good men, and were backed by the denomination. Some of them have not even read the WCF, yet claim the right to rule in the congregation.
I can remember the minister of the Nazarene church I attended near Leeds, and who was brought up in a Scottish Presbyterian manse, saying to me that WCF religion stultifies Gospel preaching and evangelism. I disagreed with him then, but on reflection, I think he was correct in his assessment. I am not in any way advocating Arminianism, but what I am saying is that we must get back to authentic Calvinism if we are to see the theological fogs lift and the glorious Gospel of Christ being heralded across the country.
Yet far too many men are more concerned about maintaining their current ministerial position than challenge the status quo. It is refreshing to hear that some men are prepared to do that, and these are probably the men who are more spiritually aware than are others and seek to do something about it. I agree that we must do the right thing, but the right thing is not always what any particular denomination says it is. I think it was Maurice Roberts who said he preferred a living Arminian church to a dead Calvinist one (whatever a 'dead' Calvinist church actually is). I agree with Roberts' point. Was St Peter's in Geneva a 'dead' reformed church? Hardly. Just read Calvin's evangelistic sermons to see and feel the force of truth on the conscience.
I also think that denominational leaders know how dangerous it is for ministers to do their own thinking, so they have used the devil's invention of multiplying committees, and then putting those most vulnerable to critical thought on these committees to keep them from developing their theological convictions - especially if their convictions just might challenge the "accepted wisdom" received by tradition from the fathers.
Any comments?
No comments:
Post a Comment