Saturday, 9 June 2012


I am reading the two volumes of the Calvinistic Methodist Fathers of Wales, to which DMLJ turned when feeling dry, and came across this section on the issue of whether or not God suffered.  See Vol. 1 half-way down p.242 through to p.245.  You will find this confirmatory of our position.  The infinite virtue and worth of the atonement is emphasised (p.243) as is the fact that "By God's passion a world's sin is brone away" (p. 244).

Youth Drain From The Mainline Churches

In the Northern Ireland religious scene there is a burgeoning of independent 'churches' that are modelled on the Vineyard churches.  They are sprouting up in many of our provincial towns such as Coleraine, Dungannon, Magherafelt, Lurgan, Portadown, etc.

Your people in particular are leaving the mainline denominations in droves, despite their trying to mimic the world in a bid to retain them.  There churches, some of them professing to be reformed churches, have introduced the rock-style praise because, they say, this is what the young people want.  It does not seem to dawn on them what God might want and how He desires to be worshipped.

I think that the reason for this exodus is that the mainline churches, while mimicking the world to keep the youth, are just not doing a great job at it.  They are unprofessional, unskilled, ragged.  Indeed, by their compromise with the world they are actually driving the young away from them.

They are succeeding sufficiently to keep them for a whole, but when their worship becomes too 'normal', they then need a stronger 'fix' of worldly worship to keep them interested in religious things.

The churches have been warned about this trend, but no one has paid a blind bit of attention to these sincerely given warnings.

The mainline churches need not complain at the exodus of young people from their ranks - they have only themselves to blame for driving them to where they will get a stronger 'fix' of unadulterated worldly religion.

Thursday, 7 June 2012


Contrary to the general public’s uninformed exuberance (reinforced by a strange and popular sycophantic media), many of us are more than a little ambivalent about the Jubilee celebrations. Sadly, the well-based accusation of Her Majesty’s betrayal of her Coronation Oath is not only food for occasional sober reflection. The facts flashing all over the internet are too stubborn to be noted then politely ignored.

Of course, with the four-day euphoria yet to die down, it is difficult for people who prefer fantasy to engage with reality. Indeed, the fanfares, ceremonial pomp and public jubilation bear no relation to the current state of the United Kingdom. Consider this: the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) saw national, cultural,
political, economic, social, moral and—as its inspirational source—spiritual progress from a superstitious, dark and brutal medievalism to something far more civilized (despite undeniable lingering defects). On the other hand, the reign of Queen Elizabeth II has witnessed the opposite: national, cultural, political, economic,
social, moral and spiritual decline.

While Her Majesty is worthy of universal affection as a person—indeed has any monarch been so greatly loved?—it remains to be said that she has reigned not merely as a figure-head over the most disastrous and unprecedented period of political, moral and spiritual decline in our nation’s history. If Her Majesty’s
governments have been in the driving seat, is she not complicit through the Royal Assent in the nation’s numerous wrong turnings?

This being so, today's rejoicing should have included a large degree of repentance. In his eulogy, the Archbishop was predictably 'PC'. Failing to proclaim the comforts and challenges of the gracious, saving kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, he failed to provide a prophetic note at this time of national crisis. While the hymns harked back to the best days of English, Scottish and Welsh Protestant Christianity, the moral
and social values they represent have long since been jettisoned from our British culture.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron read from Chapter 12 of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. In view of the appalling secularism currently driving the Government’s legislative programme, did he not have a twinge of conscience when he read ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind’ (v. 2)? These words give impetus and meaning to the distinctive Christian values inculcated by the Apostle Paul in the rest of the chapter. In short, secularism is ruining us.

Paul’s Christianity—expounded so powerfully in the early chapters of Romans—is the only antidote for our numerous national ills.

May God have mercy upon us.

God save the Queen! God save the United Kingdom! God save the Commonwealth!  God save the world!
Dr Alan C. Clifford

Wednesday, 6 June 2012

Religious Hypocrisy.

The politicians are said to be well known for their hypocrisy.  This was demonstrated very clearly when two very senior UK politicians who profess to be atheists stood in St Paul's Cathedral, London, on Tuesday 5th June 2012, and sang hymns of praise to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ Whom they do not believe exists.  Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Nick Clegg, and Mr Ed. Milliband, leader of Her Majesty's Opposition claim to be atheists yet they sing praise to a God they do not even believe exists.

On Remembrance Sunday, they do the same.  The incongruity of it all is sickening and a mockery of the highest degree.  This is a form of simony, where religion is used for purposes other than what it was intended for.  These men are not worshipping the living and true God - for them He does not exist - but they are "drawing near to Him with their lips but their hearts are far from Him."

They have created a god in their own image, and they worship that god using the precious words of the Christian church.  This is sheer religious humbug of the highest degree.  These men turn up at these civic events just because they are expected to be there.  It is their duty to be there, whether they believe in the rightness of being there or not.

That raises the other question as to how much of their politics is exactly the same.  Do they do and do they say only those things that others expect them to do and to say?  Do such men have no principles whatever?  Are they in politics for the take?  Is seeking the applause of men the greatest driving force in their lives?  Well, they have to be re-elected after all.  So, principle does not come into it.

Another sign of hypocrisy, surely.

What is Reformed?

One could be excused for imagining that only those who adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and its theological siblings are the truly reformed people of today, given the inordinate emphasis that is put on that albeit excellent human document.  

These same people also hold the Canons of Dort in high regard despite it teaching a doctrine of the atonement that is different in emphasis from that of the WCF.  They honour and believe the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism, and accept these as reformed documents.  Some even accept the reformed character of the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion as teaching reformed truth.  These all teach a variant, and may I say so, a more biblical doctrine of the atonement than does the WCF.

Yet there is an anomaly here because while these other confessional standards are regarded as reformed by many reformed men, they tend to cast aspersions on those who prefer the teaching of the other reformed confessions and catechisms to the WCF.  It is not simply a matter of personal preference; it is based on careful biblical exegesis and on taking the teaching of Scripture in the round.  They accept the other documents as reformed, but secretly they doubt the orthodoxy of those who have difficulties with the WCF.  Quite unbrotherly, is it not?

Why is this?  Is it because of a deeply ingrained partisan spirit that motivates those who disenfranchise their brothers in Christ?  Is it just ignorance of the truth and content of these other reformed documents that motivates them?  If it is ignorance, then this can be remedied by coming afresh to these documents and looking at their teaching objectively and thus addressing the ignorance issue.

However, if it a deeply ingrained partisan spirit that motivates them, then there is a serious problem.  To believe as the gurus tell us to believe is sheer credulousness, gullibility.  Why learn from second hand sources when the original and primary documents are readily available to them for study?  Second hand sources have the tendency of incorporating the prejudices of those who are thus regarded.  The primary sources have only the thinking, the prejudices, of their author.

It is so sad that those who shout loudest about the truth are often those who steadfastly refuse to consider the truth.  It is incredible that men who pride themselves in being men of truth are also prepared to spin what other documents say in order to keep in with those who hold those other man-made documents sacrosanct.  This is nothing less than the fear of man which brings a snare.  It demonstrates an uncertainty about what a man believes.  Take him out of his theological comfort zone and he is at sea.  Challenge his theological position, especially if that position is also held by the reformed gurus, and he goes to pieces.  He shows that he cannot handle the truth when he resorts to personal insults and ridicule and mis-representation.  How pathetic such creatures really are.

What makes all this infinitely worse is that the doctrine of Scripture as held by these men is called into question.  If the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only infallible rule of faith, worship and practice, and the Supreme standard of the church, why do reformed men defer continually to the WCF in order to assess a man's orthodoxy?  What is wrong with Scripture?  Do they not really understand it?  Have they their own secret doubts as to the final authority of Scripture implanted in their minds by their imbibing of theological liberalism?  And they do not have to have been taught at a liberal college for this to happen!  But these doubts seem to have appeared in their minds.  

Let me 'cut to the chase' as we say: is Scripture your final authority in all matters theological and practical, or is it not?  Do you turn instinctively "to the Word and to the testimony"?  Do you rest your beliefs for time and for eternity on the clear teaching of Scripture, or do you not?  These other documents are fine so far as they go.  But they were composed by fallible human beings, therefore cannot be regarded as the final authority.  We ought to be deeply thankful to our theological forbears for ensuring that Scripture alone is the supreme standard for all things pertaining to life and godliness.  Use the writings of men, even of the very best of men, but as someone so wisely said, only follow a man so far as he follows Christ, and no further.

This, I think, is the best counsel available in this as in many other areas of Christian life and doctrine.  Follow this dictum, and you will not go far wrong.

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

The Coronation Oath

The Coronation Oath Act, 1953

Herewith the actual words of the oath taken by the Queen on 2nd June 1953:

Archbishop of Canterbury: Madam, is your Majesty willing to take the Oath?

The Queen: I am willing.

Archbishop: Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen: I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop: Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen: I will.

Archbishop: Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen: All this I promise to do.


Queen Elizabeth II has broken her ‘Coronation Oath’, and is the first Monarch to have done so. She has been fully non-compliant with the wording of the ‘Coronation Oath’. She has aided the take-over of the United Kingdom by her inactions, and has allowed a Despotic Labour-Government to remain in power. The Queen is a Traitor, and has disgraced her family, and betrayed the people of the United Kingdom. The Queen has also know of the Treason committed by previous Governments … dating back to 1972, and has done nothing to stop it. The Queen has been fully complicit in the take-over of the United Kingdom by a Foreign-Power (that being the EU).

Queen Elizabeth II …has without question betrayed her oath made before God and as a consequence has wilfully betrayed us!!!!!!

These were very solemn oaths that she took in full knowledge of their requirements.  Has she maintained the Laws of God in our nation?  Has she maintained the true profession of the Gospel?   Has she done all in her power to maintain in the UK the Protestant Reformed Religion?  Does she know what the Protestant Reformed Religion is?  Regardless of the theological perversions conducted within the CoE, she has maintained that religious institution intact. 

Do you agree with this assessment?  If so, please provide evidence for your answer.

Dedication and the Queen

Speaking at the Diamond Jubilee for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams based his remarks on Paul's letter to the Roman, chapter 12, verse 2.  He demonstrated the inadequacy of the modern current understanding of 'dedication.'

Rather, he brought the meaning of the word as understood in the biblical and classical languages to the attention of his multimillion person global congregation, saying that dedication has to do with the giving of oneself to a particular calling without allowing anything to distract from that divine calling.  It was about being single-focussed, single-minded determination to serve God first and foremost.

He then went on to say that in his application that the Queen was to do all she could to make her subjects happy.

What a reversal of what Paul actually wrote.  Dr Williams could and should have called upon the Queen to keep her coronation oath to maintain the Protestant and Reformed Faith; but he failed to do so.  He ought to have called her to repentance for her sins; but he failed in this too.  He ought to have encouraged her to serve the living God, revealed supremely in Jesus Christ, and to serve her subjects through her dedicated service to Him; again, the Archbishop failed to do this.

He failed, but I will take it upon myself to remind the Queen, "Your Majesty, I am a loyal subject of yours and honour you for the civic work you have done over the past 60 years.  I acknowledge the way you have united most of our people, as exhibited at the Jubilee celebrations.  

However, I would remind you of your coronation oath which you took in the Presence of Almighty God to maintain the Protestant Reformed Faith.  I humbly ask you to refresh your memory of what you vowed, and take whatever steps are necessary to change religious and ecclesiastical direction.  Please do not listen to what your advisers tell you regarding matters religious and theological.  It is quite obvious that they are mis-informing you.  Get back to the Bible, back to the great English reformers, to the Puritans, to Whitefield and the Wesleys, to Isaac Watts and Philip Doddridge if you want to get the right end of things.  Our country needs to be re-formed according to the Scriptures, and you can give a strong and positive lead in this movement." 

Monday, 4 June 2012

Calvin and Courage - Read it for Yourself

Click here to access one of the chapters of the book John Calvin 500 that was reviewed in the current edition of the English Churchman.

See what you think.

John Calvin 500 - the Review Reviewed

The 'review' of Calvin 500 from the 'pen' of Trevor Kirkland published in the English Churchman (1st and 8th June edition) is not surprising.  I notice that he deliberately omits any encouragement to read Calvin's sermons.  I wonder why?  His language is intemperate, prejudiced and in no way irenic in spirit.  You would think he was writing about the greatest enemy the Christian faith has.  He obviously does not realise that Amyraldianism holds an honoured position within our Reformed heritage.

His surprise at the mention of Dort, Twisse, Calamy, etc is indicative of unmasked prejudice if not ignorance.  The Owenite magisterium certainly has got a tight grip on his mind, just as it has within Roman Catholicism.  

"Amyraldianism" has been regarded as a 'theological swearword' by theological extremists and, according to Trevor, this pertains right up to this day.  The hatred for the name is so deeply ingrained that it is doubtful whether or not these men are capable of objective study and thought.  They are convinced that loyalty to a system is what marks out a truly reformed 'thinker.'  Prejudice reduces the capacity for rational thought, and there is plenty of that here.  The fact is that his stance cannot be supported from either Scripture or from Calvin or DMLJ.  They are heart scared to depart from or even question Westminster theology in case they are lead by what Schaeffer called 'true truth.'  That would never do.  To paraphrase, we must never allow Scripture to get in the way of a good theology!

As I say, no disappointment here.  I just hope that the readers will consult the primary Calvin sources and read them for themselves, and not least his sermons.  I think the reviewer was present at the Northern Ireland Puritan and Reformed conference when Rev. Dr Iain D. Campbell said that if you want to get to know what a man really believes, read his sermons.  Obviously he does not accept this dictum and prefers reliance upon dogma to any attempt to search the primary sources and look dispassionately at the data that is presented for all to see.

The Queen and Judas Iscariot are Well Matched

As someone who has been a patriot all his life, and would still prefer to be part of the UK, we have been left with no leadership worth talking about.  Indeed, the Queen has broken nearly every solemnly-taken oath - in fact, I can't think of one she has kept - she took in the presence of God 60 years ago.  I suppose it's one of the downsides of having a constituency monarchy.  That she needs to be 'saved' is beyond question.

Canada introduced the same-sex law for 'marriage' in 2005, and just recently there has been a court case involving polygamists.  There is every possibility that, despite the authorities turning a willing blind eye to Islamist polygamy in the UK (which is illegal), the practice will be decriminalised in the UK in the not too distant future.  And who is the Head of state of Canada?  The same lady!

In these and in many other areas, she has undermined and denied the Protestant Reformed faith that she promised she would keep sixty years ago, and the next generation who will succeed her to the Throne of the UK will proceed down this grease pole of immorality.

She has betrayed her peoples across the world and commonwealth, and more importantly and seriously, she has betrayed the LORD to Whom she made these promises at her coronation.  

She agreed to the UK joining what was then the Common Market, the EEC, under the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon, Edward Heath without raising a word of dissent.

She has made facilities available for the Islam religion to be practice in her one of her palaces.  Her allegiance to the Protestant Reformed Faith, which she promised to uphold, is now non-existent, despite her attendance at 'churches' that do not preach God's saving Gospel.  Her alliances with Romanism and its associate, Islam, demonstrate her softly softly approach to matters Protestant and Reformed.  Despite her well received message last Christmas, what she said appears to have been a matter of saying what the people expected her to say, without it going much deeper.

She has rubber-stamped clearly immoral laws brought by parliament - the infamous 1967 Abortion Act, the decriminalisation 30 years ago of sodomy, civil partnerships, etc.

It is impossible for biblical Christians to accord her the respect that she ought to receive had she been loyal to her oaths.  Bible believing Christians ought not to see it as a duty to support her stance on massively important issues of morality.  

What have the Queen and Judas Iscariot in common?  Both betrayed the Lord and His Truth.

God save our pathetic nation!

Sunday, 3 June 2012

Keep Your Head Down

The aftermath of a Gospel ministry in many a congregation is one of shock, unbelief, anger.  Such a ministry has sought to honour God and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the world, albeit imperfectly. 

When a successor arrives in that same congregation, it appears that he is given 'sage advice' from church colleagues and senior administrators.  That advice is along the line of 'keep your head down;'  'don't rock the boat;' 'don't break any ice.' 

In other words, "Don't concern yourself about spiritual things, and certainly not about the spiritual condition of your congregation.  Even if Christian professors go to hell when they die, don't get too concerned about it.  It's their choice, after all.  Let them go on in their ignorance, in the false religion.  Your job is to keep the pagans happy; you are there to keep the church machine running well.  But don't task your ordination vows too seriously - that will only cause trouble in the church and also for you.  The last man took his sincerely taken ordination vows very seriously and look what happened to him."

That happens in evangelical churches in Northern Ireland today.  Passionate preachers are best placed to see sinners converted to Christ and built up in their most holy faith; but they are also best placed to annoy church members and church leaders and get himself into trouble.  Church Christians truly do not want that kind of minister, but true believers do.  Church Christians do not want clear Gospel preaching, but true Christians do.  Church people just want to keep the church running like a social club or a religious business.  The last thing they want is truth, Gospel truth, Gospel messages.

However, that attitude explains clearly the current state of the evangelical church.  She has in church membership many who are not even converted.  Unconverted people, especially if they are religious and hold office in the church, utterly hate the Gospel.  Religious sinners who do not know Christ or the forgiveness of sins, do not want to be told that if they are still unconverted they are not Christians.  They do not want to hear the Gospel. 

So what do they do to the Gospel preacher?  They oppose him, persecute him, undermine him, ridicule him.  They orchestrate all kinds of things in a bid to get rid of him.  They just do not want such a preacher in their church.  They want to listen to religious nothingness, because that causes no one any trouble - no one that is but the true Christian.  He wants the Gospel above all else.  However costly it is to him personally, he wants the Gospel.  That's how you know that a man is a true Christian - he wants the Gospel no matter what it does to him. 

Church authorities do a massive dis-service to the Gospel, to the Kingdom of God, and to the well-being of men's souls, when they advise ministers to go easy with the Gospel.  In fact, insofar as they engage in such evil activity they consign sinners to a Christless hell for all eternity. 

No true Christian will ever do such a wicked thing.