The Firm's Men.

Why is it that the 'firm's men' within the churches do not want to face up to the challenge of reforming the church to which they belong? One answer: their church is so perfect that it does not need further reformation, or reforming. A perfect church does not need to be brought into line with Christ and His will for His people, because such a church is already there.

One question to ask the 'firm's men' within your denomination is this: what must be done to conform our church to the likeness of Christ? What changes does she need to make? Are they fundamental changes, or are they peripheral? Does your church base its activities, beliefs and practices around your preferences, or are they biblically based? If they are biblically-based, why do so many other sound evangelicals believe and practice differently?

Is your church the kind of church that you could, with confidence, bring an unsaved friend along to and be sure he would hear the Gospel being preached by the preacher? Does your man preach the Gospel clearly and with passion? Can you sense that he is heart and soul committed to what he is telling you? Or is it just a lecture, a 'glorified bible study,' as Dr Lloyd-Jones describes such performances? When you listen to him praying, reading the Scripture and preaching, do you get a sense of God, an awareness that God is in the midst?

These are the questions that Christians within the churches need to ask their leadership and address with urgency. Too many professing Christians seem content to be part of a denomination that opposes and rejects the Gospel and that has a clear alliance with theological liberalism. They don't mind evangelicals and liberals cooperating and exchanging pulpits and sharing 'fellowship.' They, by their actions (or inactions) are sending out a very clear message that liberalism is not wrong, that it has an understanding of the Gospel that differs from theirs, but it is not that bad at all because we believe that if God wants a sinner saved, He will do it anyway. Now thank God that He is sovereign in salvation as in all other matters; but how wicked a thing it is to use this precious doctrine to excuse the error and falsehood of liberalism and also to excuse their refusal to deal with this evil and to remove it from their midst!

Do evangelicals in theologically corrupt denominations not realise that liberalism is as different from Christianity as Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism are from Christianity? Now here's the irony: evangelicals in these denominations would be up in arms if they were to join with these other world religions, but seem to be blissfully ignorant of the strange bed-fellows they are sharing with right now. To accept error as just another and different way of understanding the Scriptures is to damn countless souls in hell and to love what God hates.

Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Eph.5:25

Reflecting on what J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray affirmed, I searched the Doctor’s published sermons on Eph.4 where Paul deals with the doctrine of the church, especially her unity.  I was disappointed not to find any reference there to Christ dying for the church in that chapter.  I then read the entire letter of Paul to the Ephesians and there discovered that he dealt with the issue of the atonement within the context of Christian marriage.  The atonement was not his major focus in these expositions, however; his focus was on the Christian understanding of marriage.  This was positioned within the immediate context of the Christian’s responsibilities as a wife, husband, child and employee.[1]  Even when dealing with a subject as practical as marriage, Paul cannot exclude the consideration of doctrine, especially the doctrine of salvation.

Among the very first things he preaches on Eph.5:25-33 is his understanding of the love of God.  He sees it both in particularistic terms and in its universalistic sense.  He writes, “It is the same sort of love wherewith Christ loved the church; indeed, wherewith God loved the world.”[2]  He draws attention to the fact that this is the same Greek root that is used for God’s love (αγαπαω) both in Jn 3:16 and in Eph.5:25.  The love with which Christ loved the church is identical to the love with which God loved the world.  DML-J demonstrates particularism and universalism in his choice of words.  The love with which God loved the world is a love that loved the ugly, the vile, the ungodly, the sinful, the weak, the guilty and condemned.  It was a love that moved outward to another.  This is not a sentimental love, but a love that acted for the good of another/others; it was a love that gave. 

So to teach how husbands are to love their wives, Paul uses the illustration of how Christ loved the church – he gave and gave and gave again.  Christ’s love is a giving love, an outgoing love, a redemptive love.  His love has a particular object – the church.  Christ had already loved the church and had given Himself for her.  God loved the world and gave His only begotten Son for it, indicating that it was precisely the same love each time.  What He did for the world, He did also for the church, and vice versa.  Personalising what He did for the church by giving Himself for her salvation, DML-J proceeds to apply this to the individual, adding, “[Y]es but also ‘for me’, for every one of us as individuals.”[3]  “Every one of us as individuals” is included in Christ’s atoning work on Calvary. 

Bearing in mind that the context here is Christian marriage and the character and quality of the love that a husband ought to show to his wife, DML-J reiterates what he describes as “supreme doctrine ... no higher doctrine.”  A Christian husband is to love his wife sacrificially and without consideration for himself or his welfare.  His love for her is to be exclusive of all others, particular.  I remember hearing Dr John MacArthur[4] translating 1 Tim.3:2 on the qualifications of an elder, that he should be “a one woman man,” more familiarly, “the husband of one wife.”  The relationship is to be exclusive.  DML-J says, “- all that the Lord Jesus Christ did, he did for the church.”  There is no dispute here on either side of the soteriological debate, and DML-J is accurately reflecting what the great apostle Paul had written.  He continues, “He died for the church; He died for nobody else.”[5] 

These are clear and strong words from the Doctor, and, out of their context, they spell out an equally clear particularist understanding of the atonement.  But again his purpose in writing this is to demonstrate from the highest possible source the quality of love with which husbands ought to love their wives.  It is to be a particular love that is focused on their chosen spouses.  Christian men are to choose their love, and then to love their choice – exclusively.  That there is a particularity in God’s and Christ’s love is not disputed, and Paul brings this out here.  By extension, there is also to be a particular love of a husband for his wife.  Election undergirds what the apostle is writing, and election has to do with prior choice. 

It is important to note that when DML-J speaks about Christ dying for the church, he nowhere denies that Christ died only for the church, although the accompanying phrase, “nobody else,” in this sermon context has the potential to point in that direction.  Why, then, did he use this form of words here?  It was to teach these Ephesians, and therefore us, the exclusivity and particularity of marriage love. 

He uses this term in the sense that those whom Christ loved with this particular love and for whom He died effectually received incalculable benefits from that atoning death – they had their sins and guilt atoned for.  Wives also receive great benefits from being loved in that way by their husbands.   

This is not to deny that DML-J believed exclusively in an atonement that benefitted only the elect.  It is the quality of the divine love that is emphasised here.  Husbands are to show quality love to their wives – that’s the Doctor’s focus in these sermons.

But, and returning more directly to the atonement, DML-J had a great place in his evangelist’s heart those who made up the rest of mankind.  He goes on to teach that Christ also had a real, compassionate love for all men, and for these He died sufficiently and made atonement for their sins too.  To enter into the benefits of that atonement, they had to trust the Saviour.  For DML-J, Christ’s death was not a mere commercial transaction, a mere pecuniary act on His part; rather it was essentially forensic in character because it dealt with personal debt and guilt; pecuniary transaction dealt only with the impersonal.  In fact, in the same paragraph, DML-J uses the Lombardian paradigm to explain what he meant by these particularistic remarks.  Let him speak for himself.

His death, as Calvin and other expositors remind us, because it was eternal and because He is the Son of God, is sufficient for the whole world; but it is efficient only for the church. His purpose in dying was to redeem the church. He gave Himself for the church, for all who belong to her when she will be complete and perfect and entire. All was known to God from eternity, and the Son came, and gave Himself for the church.[6]

It was in this sense, and in this sense alone, that “He died for nobody else.”  Paul here safeguards the proper breadth of the Gospel, and DML-J does likewise.  Selective reading of the DML-J corpus is natural to dogma-driven theologians but it is essentially disingenuous and unjust for them to do so.  To infer from this that he believed about the atonement what Owen believed is quite erroneous, if not mischievous.  DML-J’s soteriology is balanced and gives due weight to the particular and universal emphases that are found in the actual text with which he is dealing.  This demonstrates his methodology when expounding the text of Scripture. He sticks to his text and says all it has to say.  And he does this with every text he handles, thus bringing out the due emphasis of that text in proper biblical balance.  It is interesting that J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray could only identify his exposition of two passages that they say indicate that DML-J taught limited atonement, and even this is open to question.  A careful reading of his sermons will demonstrate otherwise.  Great care must always be taken that we do not read into another man’s beliefs what we would wish was there, and isn’t.

It is unfortunate that DML-J went beyond what was written when he made this statement, “He died for nobody else,” a practice against which he constantly warned and a principle which at this point he contravened.  It is at least arguable that he allowed his mind to run off on a tangent, preaching as he did from the scantiest of notes; this does happen to preachers at times, especially those who speak in an extempore manner.  This is the only place that I know of where he has made such an extreme and uncharacteristic statement on the death of Christ, despite DML-J's ubiquitous universalism.[7]

As is well known, one or even two swallows do not make a summer, though the Murray's seem to think they do.  They have tried, unsuccessfully, to create an uncharacteristic DML-J position on the atonement in a way not dissimilar to what Pharaoh did to the Hebrews in Egypt where they were expected to make clay bricks without straw.[8]  The Murray's may have a little bit of clay, but they have no straw and they didn't end up with any bricks, either!

Further, it is of particular note that DML-J sees our salvation as something that God does for us and as something that actually happens to us.  It is experiential in character and is described in this sermon in terms of our being “rescued” and “redeemed.”[9]  Had it not been for the sufficiency of Christ’s death for all and its efficiency for the church, we would still be in our sins.  Once the sinner trusts in Christ’s finished work on Calvary, he experiences God’s gracious salvation.  Because election and predestination[10] are not experiential in nature, it is not these that bring the sinner into possession of the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ; it is the requirement that God has for faith in Christ that does it.  DML-J believes that it was the “precious blood” of Christ that purchased redemption for the world, but it does not become the possession of the elect automatically.  The salvific benefits of Christ’s blood have to be applied by the Holy Spirit and appropriated by the sinner by faith, which is the conduit for receiving it. 

Given that the vast majority of DML-J material on the atonement points in the universalistic direction, this very rare statement in fact proves the thesis I am presenting, and is the exception that proves the rule.  

Dr Alan C. Clifford, who knew the Doctor quite well for no less than eighteen years, explained why he thought DML-J used this uncharacteristic language (“He died for nobody else.”) in his exposition of Eph.5:25 which was delivered in 1959/1960.  At this time the high orthodox Banner of Truth Trust was just being set up, and DML-J was most keen to avoid any rifts with this new Reformed movement.  In an email to me, Clifford suspects that such caution drove him at this juncture.  “Whatever he published on paper, it remains true that he was 'uncomfortable' with LA [limited atonement]. In short, he didn't really believe it.[11]

So, the two passages alleged by J. J. Murray and I. H. Murray to support the view that DML-J believed and preached limited atonement have been found to prove nothing of the sort.  Taken out of context, it could be argued that this is what he believes and teaches.  But kept firmly within the context of his preaching and of these sermons, it has been shown that there was a breadth and width in DML-J’s soteriology that neither of these men would embrace.  Hence, it is pushing language much too far to claim that they and DML-J are on the same side of this controversy.

---

[1]    Eph.5:22-6:9.

[2]    Selection #107.

[3]    1974:145.

[4]    The meeting was held in Belfast, Northern Ireland in the early 1990s.

[5]    Ibid.

[6]    1974:145, 146.

[7]    Dr Alan C. Clifford in an email dated 17 August 2013.

[8]    Ex.5:18.

[9]    1974:146.

[10]  These undergird and guarantee the success of the Gospel in the world.

[11]  Clifford, dated 27^th July 2013.

Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones on Rom.5:15

In March 2012, I had a conversation with Rev. John J. Murray, for sometime an editor with the Banner of Truth Trust in London and in Edinburgh.  The occasion was the thirty-first anniversary conference to mark the death of Rev. Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones at which Rev. Murray delivered two of the papers.  In the course of his address, Mr Murray said that “Dr Lloyd-Jones believed in limited atonement.”  Afterwards, I quizzed him about this assertion and asked for the grounds on which he had made it.  He assured me that he taught this doctrine in his exposition of Rom.5:15.  I was slightly taken aback by this because everything I had read of the Doctor’s did not give me any reason to think that this was his belief and was what he preached.  On the contrary, his position was very much closer to universal atonement than it was to definite atonement as even a cursory reading of his evangelistic sermons on Acts will demonstrate. 

A few days later, I was in the Evangelical Bookshop in Belfast and was discussing this issue with the manager, Mr John Greer.  He said he would ring Rev. Iain H. Murray and ask him about this question.  Mr Murray confirmed that the Doctor believed and preached limited atonement and this can be found in his sermons on Rom.5 and also in his sermons on Eph.5.  These he confirmed proved that the Doctor held limited atonement as the proper understanding of soteriology.

Having read carefully again the relevant sermons from these studies, my findings are as follows.  Despite at least 365 direct quotations from DML-J’s published sermons which teach directly and/or clearly imply universal atonement, this contrary viewpoint came as a surprise to me as one who has been studying the Lloyd-Jones corpus for more than forty years.  So what exactly did he say about Rom.5:15?

DML-J, in this published series, preached two sermons in the Romans series on Rom.5:15 at the Friday evening meeting at or about February/March 1958.  The first of these two sermons dealt with one aspect of the verse while the second found him zooming in on the second part of this text that had attracted some controversy and misunderstanding.  It concerns the meanings of “all” and “the many.”[1]  After affirming that “sheer literalism” makes “all” in this verse mean ‘every individual person in the world,’ he discounts this methodology as wrongheaded and “unintelligent.”[2]  He proceeds to demonstrate that

‘all’ and ‘the world’ and ‘many’ and so on, as used in Scripture, quite frequently do not mean every individual in the world ... they do not mean every single member of the human family.[3] 

Given that his message was leading up to a denial of stark universalism, it is easy to see why he adopted this approach.  He proceeds to give examples of how this is not the case, and refers to the text, “all the world should be taxed.”[4]  Clearly, he argues, this cannot mean that every single individual in the world.

Another example he gives is Peter’s sermon on the Day of Pentecost in which he quotes from the prophet Joel.  God says that in the last days, He will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh...[5]  He dismisses as ridiculous the idea that this means everyone, including the ungodly.

DML-J rejects the “foolish literalism” that makes the meaning of “all” in Scripture inclusive of everyone,[6] for Scripture limits the meaning of this and similar terms by placing conditions on them.  In so doing, he is exposing and opposing universalism per se, the kind used by naked universalists.  He believes that only those who believe are justified,[7] in contradistinction to the new perspective on Paul teaching that is current at this time.[8]  DML-J is opposing the erroneous teaching of universal salvation, which he condemns without reservation.  The teaching that because Christ died for all, all will finally be saved is both false and foolish.  The falsehood contained in this teaching has only to be stated to be recognised for what it is, and its foolishness goes against the observable facts, and no time will be wasted in refuting these errors.  

However, it is critically important to indicate that DML-J is not opposing universal atonement.  His criticism is of universalism not hypothetical universalism, not Amyraldianism, or authentic Calvinism.  His condemnation is of those who purport to teach on biblical grounds that “all” will be saved eventually by God’s love. 

It is also important at this juncture to point out that DML-J clearly does not teach one thing in his sermons on Acts and something different in his sermons on Romans.  In fact, limited atonement is not even mentioned in these published sermons on Rom.5:15, nor indeed is it taught as a theory of the atonement that he espoused in any of his sermons now in print.  It is unfortunate that no audio digital recording of his two sermons on Rom.5:15 is available on the MLJ website,[9] despite the fact that his audio sermons on Rom.5:12 is followed immediately by his sermon on Rom.5:16, 17.  As stated earlier, during Dr R. T. Kendall’s Doctoral work at Oxford University, frequent discussions were held between the two men on this subject.  During one such discussion with Kendall, DML-J, referring to the doctrine of limited atonement, confessed, “I never preached it, you know … only once on Rom.5:15 and I was in great difficulty when I did so.” 

No record exists as to when this might have been done, but such a theory does not appear in his published expositions of Rom.5:15. What probably has happened is that while he might have said he believed this doctrine during his preaching on Rom.5:15, when the Romans 5 book, Assurance, was eventually published, this reference was redacted from the printed sermon.  Having checked the audio of this sermon, this can be ruled out as a possible explanation for the alleged omission.  Or, what is also equally likely, he had preached on this verse on another occasion and at a different venue, and experienced the difficulty referred to in his conversation with Kendall.  Further, if DML-J did preach on or refer to limited atonement during his sermons on Rom.5:15, he may well have asked that the recording be destroyed so as not to give the wrong impression of his theology, and I admit that this is pure speculation on my part. 

Whatever the precise explanation for its non-appearance in his published sermons on Rom.5:15, or in the MLJ archive containing his 1,600 recorded sermons, the Doctor admitted that he was quite ill at ease when he tried to preach limited atonement from that or, by extension, from any other verse of Scripture.  Whatever he might have said in private, this emphasis does not appear in his published sermons that were edited by him or by his widow and daughters after his death.

DML-J criticises a wrong understanding of what Paul was writing in this letter.  Asking the following three rhetorical questions about what this actually means,

If it does not mean universal salvation, does it mean that what the Apostle is teaching here is that the opportunity or the possibility of justification is to be offered to all?  Is he saying that in Jesus Christ there is the chance or the opportunity for all to justify themselves if they believe and accept the message?  Is it the possibility for all, if it is not a fact concerning all?[10]

he comes out very clearly on what he thinks Paul means.  He is emphasising the certainty of salvation for believers, not its mere possibility.  However, salvation is possible for unbelievers, on condition they trust in Christ alone.  His emphasis is not on the atonement as such, but on Christian assurance of salvation.  The book of sermons in which these studies are published was given the title Assurance.  In fact, he uses the term “justify themselves” if they believe and accept the Gospel message.  No man can justify himself by the works of the law[11] – Paul’s way of describing how sinners engage in self-salvation by human efforts of whatever kind, however spiritual these efforts might appear.  He is clear, however, that the benefits of the redemption purchased by Christ can only be received by faith in Christ alone; but it is not faith per se that justifies, but God.[12]  So, like Calvin, faith unlocks the soteriology of DML-J.

How, then, does DML-J interpret the terms “all” and “the many”?  His general answer is typical – we must “allow Scripture to speak for itself.”[13]  He is at pains not to introduce philosophy, given the natural tendency among humans to do just that.  His explanation is that Paul is contrasting the “all” who are in Adam with the “all” who are in Christ.  Paul’s interest is not in numerics, but in fundamental principles.[14]  Fallen mankind is by nature connected with Adam, and we all died in Adam; but by grace all believers are in Christ and they live in Him – all of them.  Paul is speaking here about salvation, not universal salvation, so he marshals his arguments to teach that salvation is certain for all who are in Christ, those who know God’s ongoing forgiveness, as Calvin teaches.  Moreover, Calvin’s understanding of this verse very evidently steers away from a literalist interpretation by saying in his commentary on Hebrews:

To bear, or, take away sins, is to free from guilt by his satisfaction those who have sinned. He says the sins of many, that is, of all, as in Romans 5:15. It is yet certain that all receive no benefit from the death of Christ; but this happens, because their unbelief prevents them.[15]

The editor of Calvin’s commentary on Hebrews adds, “It is the character of the Apostle’s style to change his words, while the same idea is often intended,” a case in point being where he avers that “many” means “all.”

In his Romans commentary, Calvin writes

Paul makes grace common to all men, not because it in fact extends to all, but because it is offered to all. Although Christ suffered for the sins of the world, and is offered by the goodness of God without distinction to all men, yet not all receive Him.[16]

The editor of Calvin’s commentary on Romans adds, “It appears from this sentence that Calvin held general redemption.” 

A cautionary note is sounded by DML-J to the effect that

we must never proceed to draw deductions beyond what is stated in Scripture. ... All we can do is to read the Scriptures and observe what they teach, and submit ourselves entirely to that.[17] 

He then quotes Deut.29:29 and leaves purely technical considerations with the God of all wisdom.  “That is as far as we can go, and are meant to go,” he concludes.

So the natural meaning of Scripture was his guide in all branches of theology, and this was so visibly demonstrated in his sermon on Rom.5:15.

---

[1]    Assurance, 1971:240-252.

[2]    Ibid., 241.

[3]    Ibid.

[4]    Lk 2:1.

[5]    Acts 2:18 quoting Joel 2:28. Assurance, 1971:242.

[6]    Ibid., 1971:243.

[7]    Ibid., 1971:244.

[8]    Prof. N. T. Wright claims that Paul teaches that we are justified by belonging (to the church) and

        not by believing the Gospel. 

[9]    The website is at www.mljtrust.org and was accessed on 15^th August 2013.

[10]   Romans, 1974:246 (rprt).

[11]   Rom.3:27; Gal.2:16.

[12]    Ibid., 247.

[13]    Ibid.

[14]    Ibid.

[15]    Calvin, Comm. Heb.9:28.  Emphasis his.

[16]    Calvin, Comm. Rom.5:15.

[17]    Ibid., 250.

Discerning Churches - But Not In The Right Way!

What do you think of this? A religious denomination is very happy to allow rank liberals who are accredited by them and within their ranks to take churches, but they will not allow a Gospel minister to be called to its congregations. If these ministers are "one of us," then what they believe and preach is of no account whatever. So long as they can pass their theological exams, they're in!

I understand that churches must guard their official teaching role, but when it reaches the point where churches that call themselves 'evangelical' and 'reformed' simply do not want Gospel preachers - and actually remove such men from their ministry - preferring instead those who could not preach their way out of a wet paper bag and who have no clear Gospel message, things have reached an awful pitch.

The church today is in reality a 'power club,' and loves to be able to control its ministers and what and how they preach.

Gospel ministers coming into a dead denomination are guaranteed a rough time. The denomination might be orthodox and even admit theological liberals to its ranks, but evangelicals are a different matter altogether. Church authorities do not seem to care about the eternal destinies of its members so long as they keep on paying into church funds, and they enjoy being members of the 'club.'

Church members do not all like to hear a straight Gospel sermon, and these members also know that the church leaders will support them against a Gospel minister, so they can gradually remove the Gospel from their denomination. The Gospel really is Christian Counter Culture, hence the opposition from those churches that will protect their religious culture against all comers.  To them, their culture and its maintenance is much more important than a Gospel that challenges that culture. 'Keep the culture, but get rid of Jesus,' the culture seems to be.

This is happening in Northern Ireland, a land once known for its evangelical fervour. The church here still has a name to live, but that life is difficult to find in many instances. "Essay readers" occupy many of her pulpits, but few preachers as such. These theological essay's are read with studied detachment, and with the occasional quote from classical authors to prove the preacher's cleverness, but it's no more than a name. And church leaders imagine they are serving the Lord by persecuting those ministers who are fearless Gospel preachers and working towards securing their removal permanently from their church.

And here's the rub: they see the church as "their" church primarily, and only secondarily, and at best, the church of God. We have our traditions to maintain. Our traditions are precious to us, whether they have any biblical validity is of no account. If any minister lays a hand on that "sacred cow," they are to be removed immediately if not sooner.

The ruthlessness of churches that regard themselves as authentically reformed gives the lie to their claim to preach "the doctrines of grace." In today's confused ecclesiastical world, Christian church members have to re-consider their continued membership of and financial support to such churches. How can they continue to support a church that takes legal action against its ministers for preaching the Gospel! And how can they provide financial support to any church that treats Gospel ministers and members so despicably.

The time is fast approaching when a new church body must be set up to safeguard the Gospel for the generations to come. One thing Christians cannot do id this: they cannot expect apostate churches to preach a biblical Gospel with fire sent down from heaven. And if they cannot expect that, then they are not to be expected to remain in such denominations. Reform of the church according to the Scriptures is urgently needed, and God will guide His redeemed people in the right way and at the right time to bring this to pass.

The LORD Is My Shepherd

The great Baptist preacher of nineteenth century London, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, wrote the following words on Ps.23:1, "The Lord is my shepherd." “What condescension is this, that the infinite Lord assumes towards his people the office and character of a Shepherd! It should be the subject of grateful admiration that the great God allows himself to be compared to anything which will set forth his great love and care for his own people.”

Isn’t that lovely? The Lord’s deep humility is seen in His becoming the One Who shepherds us, pastors us, Whom is “our Shield and Defender.” He places Himself between us and danger, and fends off the enemy. He leads us to where our souls are fed and nourished and restored. This is the Good Shepherd Who laid down His life for us (1 Jn.3:16). We sing with Philip P. Bliss, “Hallelujah! What a Saviour!”

Our hearts ought to know no reserve when we praise and worship such a Redeemer. And His Father, and ours, allows Himself to be compared to a lowly shepherd, one who loves and cares for the sheep. He understands our needs, you know. The care He has for His own children, for you and for me, should be the subject of our never-dying praise and gratitude. Our hearts should be enlarged with the holiest worship of such a great Shepherd. As His sheep, we are owned by Him; if we were wolves or goats or wild animals, then we would have an altogether different owner, one not nearly so loving and kind. He owns us; we are not our own; we were bought with a price – the precious blood of Christ (1 Cor.6:20). Our Owner sets great store on us, views us a precious in His sight, and takes great delight in us.

Brothers and sisters, we belong to Christ. And the One Who is our shepherd is the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us cultivate this sense of total dependence on Him for everything, yea, for life itself. Spurgeon remarks that the sweetest monosyllable in this verse is the word My. The LORD is my shepherd.

Can you say that? Do you know Him as your shepherd? Has He become your shepherd? Have you trusted Him personally? Are you living for Him? Is He your everything, and is He your all? Have you come to Him and asked Him to make you one of His sheep?

If you have, then you will know that He loves you, cares for you, watches over you, leads and guide you, and has your best and eternal interest at heart. Whatever your present circumstances might be, the LORD is with you and by His Spirit lives in you. The words are in the present tense, which means that these things are true for you at every moment and in every circumstance. Did you realise that? At this very moment in your life’s experience, the LORD is with you. You are under His loving and constant care.

When living with cancer, there are few truths that are more precious to the Christian believer. When everything seems to be blackness and gloom, to look up to this wonderful Shepherd is the greatest privilege of all. When you wonder what is going to happen to you, and whether or not you will live or die, this Psalm is the God-provided antidote. When you question what will become of your family and loved-ones, you turn your eyes to Jesus, the Good Shepherd, and cast yourself on Him. Why? Because He cares for you (1 Pet.5:7). Jesus Christ cares for you! He is more than able to supply all your needs both now and forever. That’s our hope and stay amidst life’s troubles.

Quenching the Spirit.

When you have experienced much of God’s goodness in the valley experiences of life, the big thing is that you do not want to do anything that would “quench the Spirit” (1 Thes.5:19) and drive Him away from us. We have enjoyed so much of God these past nine months in particular that we cannot bear to think that through our carelessness He would leave us. That is the burden of Margaret’s prayer in recent days. She knows just how easy it is to grow cold when the back is no longer up against the proverbial wall, and how easy it is to let spiritual disciplines slip back into ‘normal’ mode.

Thankfully we are aware of this possibility, and being fore-warned is to be fore-armed. Even in this matter, God has been very good to us. Her godly mother, now with Christ, used to warn about the “grey hairs” (Hos.7:9) appearing and “the little foxes” that come in to raid the crop, and all without us knowing it (Song of Solomon 2:15).

How subtle is Satan and how crafty his working. We remember, of course, that God is sovereign in his dealing with His children, and that in His approaches to them, He draws near when they need Him, and then, for His own reasons, withdraws a bit, and all without them having done anything. I am reminded of Rev David Morgan, one of the preachers in eighteenth and nineteenth century Wales, and who was a very ordinary preacher. He tells of how he went to bed one night as David Morgan and rose the next day like a lion, and had a spectacular preaching ministry for about two years. Then he went to bed as a lion one night and woke up as David Morgan, and resumed a most unspectacular ministry for the rest of his life. This demonstrates the sovereignty of the Spirit in these matters.

That said, it is very possible for us, as believers, to “quench the Spirit” in one way or another, which very thing, by God’s grace, we do not want to do. These times have been too precious and special for us to do that, at least, knowingly. We all need to be very careful about letting those little sins slip in and we find ourselves starting to walk at a distance from Christ, losing the desire for His presence, having a poor appetite for the Bible and prayer, and turning away from God-given opportunities for witness to others, whether Christian of not.

Being aware of this possibility can prove a great defence against it happening.

Church-initiated Persecution of Gospel Ministers in Northern Ireland

Recovering from something as traumatic as cancer and its very demanding treatment is a challenge, and patients need as much support as they can get. Family is always a great  source of support and comfort, as are friends who call and help with food, etc. 

Yet, it is noteworthy just how little it takes to upset the equilibrium that has been enjoyed.  Satan is always looking for an opportunity to attack, and sadly there is no lack of springboards from which to launch such attacks.

What some people will not believe or accept is how many times the “Christian” church is at the forefront of attacking Gospel ministers.  “Oh, the church would never do that,” they say in defense of their own denomination.  “The minister must have done something very wrong for our church to remove him.” 

Well, on that point they are quite correct.  These men have preached the Gospel with power and passion, which very thing the churches do not want.  And they have applied Gospel principles to and within their congregations, another unwanted church commodity.

Today’s liberal and anti-Gospel churches are still removing Gospel-preaching ministers from their charges, while they leave the ‘good churchmen’ to get on with their lives, not to mention their ministries.  What are ‘good churchmen’?  ‘Good churchmen’ are those who never disturb the consciences of their hearers, never question their professions of faith, never expect their faith to be seen in everyday life, never ask uncomfortable questions of the church, and never question the spirituality of the church.  They just turn a blind eye to religious formalism and outward respectability, and as long as the church is functioning “as it was in the beginning, is now, and evermore shall be,” all is well. 

But once God’s transforming Gospel arrives in such churches, it is as if all hell is let loose – against the minister and those who support the minister because he preaches the everlasting Gospel.  As Dr John Stott calls it, the Gospel is Christian Counter Culture.  It challenges everything, particularly those whose religious and eternal well-being are dependent solely on a mere profession of faith.  Such people imagine they are genuine Christians and are regarded as such, why?  Because the church’s eldership accepted them as Christians, so they must be Christians.  And woe betide anyone, minister or otherwise, who raises any questions as to their spiritual standing. 

And remember this; the persecution of Christian ministers does not only happen in far away lands like India, Pakistan, China, etc.  It is happening right in front of our eyes.  And do you know what makes this particularly heart-breaking?  God’s people in these churches stand back and refuse to challenge such treatment of the servants of Christ, thus implicating them in what their leaders have done to Gospel men.  It shows just how little they care for the Gospel after all.  Why do they do this?  Because their ecclesiology is essentially Roman Catholic, and by that I mean, whatever the church does is right, infallibly right. 

Thank God for those ministers who, out of love for their people and for Christ and His Gospel, are prepared to challenge a religion of mere words.  Formal religion is useless when faced with death, and we have discovered the reality of a living faith in such a situation.

Two ministers have already been put out of their charges by their respective denominations, one has been forced to resign to take effect in about five weeks time, and another is on sick leave because of “work-related stress;” he joins some 35 other ministers from one denomination who are off on similar grounds.  Congregations are divided right down the middle, and in most cases, this is over the Gospel, a most unwelcome commodity in many churches today. 

This happened to me twenty years ago, and it is still happening to Gospel ministers today.  And when your wife is suffering from cancer and hears about the re-enactment of such evils by churches, it does nothing to help her in her recovery.  It brings back bad thoughts of what was done to us by the church.  You don’t need me to tell you what kind of churches they are that throw out Gospel preaching ministers, do you?  If these churches loved Christ and the Gospel, they would treasure the servants of Christ, not toss them aside as you would an empty packet.  Because these are Christ’s chosen vessels for the propagation of the Gospel, those churches and ministers will have to answer to God for the evil they have inflicted on God’s men.

Now this kind of situation needles both my wife and me.  It causes anger to arise within us, and takes us back to the days when we were going through such church-inspired persecution.  In fact, it re-traumatises us.

Please pray for these persecuted ministers of the Gospel in this land where we are told that peace and reconciliation reign.

Church of Scotland faces exodus over gay clergy

Church of Scotland leaders are set to make a decision over the appointment of openly gay ministers. Picture: Getty

By CRAIG BROWN
Published on Sunday 21 April 2013 00:09

UP TO 50 congregations may leave the Church of Scotland if the General Assembly votes next month to allow the ordination of openly gay ministers.

Two congregations and a number of ministers have already left over the issue.
Now the Kirk is braced for a potential haemorrhage of evangelical members if the proposal is passed, in protest at what they consider is a breach with biblical teachings.
Sources within the more fundamentalist Free Kirk have revealed that representatives of 50 congregations around Scotland have held initial discussions about splitting from the Church of Scotland in advance of the debate and vote on gay ordination in May.
Although the Church of Scotland has more than 1,400 congregations, such an exodus would represent the biggest split in its ranks since the 19th-century schism which led to the Free Kirk’s formation.
If such an exodus were to go ahead, the Free Kirk would almost double in size. The source said: “Representatives from the Free Church have spoken to many different ministers, elders and members in the Church of Scotland who are mulling over their options – amounting to some 50 congregations.
“Obviously, a lot hinges on what happens at the General Assembly, and the current vibe is that it does not look good at all for the evangelical ­position.”
The debate was sparked by the Rev Scott Rennie, an openly gay minister who was appointed to Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen in 2009. Two years ago the General Assembly put off a formal decision on the issue by setting up a Theological Commission. Although the seven-strong commission, drawn from both traditionalist and revisionist sides of the debate, reported last week, it declined to put forward a recommended option in its 92-page report on Same-sex Relationships and the Ministry.
Instead it offered contrasting interpretations by both sides and guidelines depending on how the General ­Assembly might vote.
The report goes on to recognise that a new schism is possible if the ordination of gay ministers is allowed. “If the revisionist trajectory is upheld,” it warns, “many Christians will feel that the Church has called ‘good’ what the Bible calls ‘sin’ and will feel the need to leave the Church.”
The congregation of St George’s Tron in Glasgow elected to leave the Kirk in December, followed in February by Gilcomston South Church in Aberdeen.
The Rev Paul Gibson, min­ister of Perth Free Church, who joined the Free Kirk last October, said: “I think evan­gelicals will feel the report simply demonstrates what has been known for a long time – ­namely that within the Kirk are not two Christian ­perspectives but, in fact, two distinct religions, both of which are incompatible with the other. One is called Christianity and submits to the Bible as the word of God and the other is called ‘liberalism’ and does not.”
A Free Church of Scotland spokesman said “It is our hope and prayer that if there are those brothers and sisters who feel they cannot stay in the Church of Scotland, that, ­rather than form yet another Presbyterian church in Scotland, they will join with those of us who have every sympathy with them and support their stance. A working group from the Free Church has spoken to a range of parties and our aim is to work with fellow Christians wherever we find them.”
A Church of Scotland spokesman said: “We regret and are saddened that any ministers or individuals feel they are obliged to, or feel the need to, leave over this issue but no-one knows how the General Assembly will vote or what it will decide until the day of the debate.”
========================================================================

I think the really important point here is that within the larger theologically mixed denominations there is not one religion but two (at least); one is biblical Christianity and the other is theological liberalism.  We must be clear that liberalism is a totally different religion from Christianity and these are incompatible within the same church structure, and liberalism ought never to be accorded any descriptor that aligns it in any way with the Christian faith.
The sister churches of the Church of Scotland are the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, the United Reformed Church  the Presbyterian Church of Wales, and many others within the ecumenical movement world-wide.  If these churches have not as yet proceeded down this road, because they tolerate liberalism as a valid expression of biblical faith, they are on the same road that will lead many to perdition.