Remember, Remember, Remember.

Well, did you remember the Reformation, or did you dabble with halloween?

And will you remember the Gunpowder Plot on 5 November?

Surely, none of us will forget 'Poppy Day' on 11 November.

THESE EVENTS HAVE A COMMON FACTOR 

1. Roman Catholic apostasy, idolatry and superstition made the Protestant Reformation necessary (click on the first YouTube link).

2. Guido Fawkes and his fellow-catholic terrorists planned to blow our Protestant Establishment to smithereens in 1605. But God had mercy upon us.

3. The Vatican was a major culprit in World War One and in the build-up to WW2 (click on the second YouTube link). It still beavers away to dominate Europe and the world.

4. Through the increasingly-popular ALPHA course, gullible evangelicals have been seduced into welcoming the Roman Catholic anti-Christian deception.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ripz2C_0LfA

REMEMBRANCE - who, what & why?  http://youtu.be/YueYMary1co

WHY DO I DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THESE THINGS?

Because, as a pastor of the Reformed Faith, I take my calling seriously (see 2 Timothy 4: 1-8, re-read this morning). 

May God bless you!

Dr Alan C. Clifford

THE BARTHOLOMEW LEGACY - Remembering the Martyrs

THE BARTHOLOMEW LEGACY

Remembering the Martyrs

But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now.

(Galatians 4: 29)

Dr Alan C. Clifford

Introduction

No, this is not about Bartholomew’s maps, nor about Barts Hospital in London. Neither can we aim to provide a biblical character study about the Apostle Bartholomew. Indeed, nothing at all is said about him in the New Testament apart from listing him among the apostles. Yet, during the early twentieth century, his name was known outside the circles of cartographers, tourists and medics. 

One can imagine a scenario somewhere in the West of England in 1923, where a Sunday school teacher tried to introduce his or her pupils to the twelve apostles. On declaring that the Bible tells us absolutely nothing about Bartholomew, an observant lad interjected with “I saw Saint Bartholomew a few days ago!” “Oh where?” To which the lad replied to the startled teacher, “Saint Bartholomew came through with the Cheltenham Flyer express” [the GWR’s new prestige train]. Our young train-spotting scholar then added excitedly, “I got the number - 2915!” 

Yes, we know more about G. J. Churchward’s famous Great Western Railway 2-cylinder, 4-6-0 Saint Class steam locomotives than we know for sure about the ‘saint’ himself. (Incidentally, 2914 was Saint Augustine and 2917 was Saint Bernard, not to ignore that 2923, 2913, 2920 and 2927 were Saints George, Andrew, David and Patrick respectively). Sadly, the superstition of ‘patron saints’ survives long after the last of these engines were scrapped in 1953. For the record (with some thematic link to our subject), Saint class 2903 Lady of Lyons (built in 1907) is credited with an unconfirmed 120 mph on a trial run. (One wonders if the current rebuild of a Saint at the GWR centre at Didcot might lead to a challenge to Mallard’s 1938 world speed record for steam of 126 mph). Whether or not the actual ‘Lady of Lyons’ was a saint (unlike 2904 Lady Godiva), the city of Lyons is associated with early persecution of Christians (177 AD) and later martyrdoms of Huguenots (1553, 1572).  

Apart from legends about his mission to India and Armenia, and his eventual horrific martyrdom (it is said he was flayed alive before being beheaded, miraculous healing properties being later claimed for his skin, hence the link with medicine), nothing is known for sure about the Apostle Bartholomew. Not to forget that imperial Rome was sacked by Alaric the Goth on 24 August 410, the medieval Roman Church appointed this calendar day for the Festival of St Bartholomew. Ironically, it was the later persecuting activities of the Roman Catholic Church that associated St Bartholomew with a most appalling atrocity that bears his name.

TWO BLACK BARTHOLOMEWS

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, following the Protestant Reformation, two outrages were committed against good and faithful Christian people on 24 August. The first - in 1572 - was against French Huguenots (Reformed Christians, Calvinists), thousands of whom were butchered by Roman Catholics in Paris and beyond. This terrible event is known as the St Bartholomew Massacre. Queen Elizabeth I went white as she heard the news. 

 

The second - in 1662 - was against English Puritans or Nonconformists (Reformed Christians, Calvinists), when around 2,000 godly pastors were ejected from their churches by the then recently-restored Church of England. Queen Elizabeth’s church (in the hands of ‘secret Catholic’ King Charles II) repeated the intolerance of the Pope’s church. Both atrocities led to much suffering and injustice.

These two expressions of ‘politically-correct’ religious tyranny (Roman Catholic and Anglican) reveal the darker side of Christian history. In the long battle between the Light and darkness, it has always been ‘right forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne’. Yet, in His sovereign wisdom and providence, Almighty God uses such atrocities to promote His everlasting kingdom, as surely as the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son brought salvation to the world.  

THE FRENCH BARTHOLOMEW

First, the facts:

1. The spread of the Reformation in France saw numerous conversions among the nobility as well as the general population. Among John Calvin’s numerous correspondents was Gaspard de Coligny, Admiral of France.

2. After a decade of religious war (following the massacre of a Reformed congregation near Vassy by soldiers of the Catholic Duke of Guise), a peace-promoting marriage between the Protestant Henry of Navarre (the future Henry IV of France) and Margaret of Valois, sister of King Charles IX took place at Notre-Dame, Paris on 18 August 1572.

3. The Protestant aristocracy were invited for the occasion, including Admiral Coligny. Much admired by the young Charles IX, he proposed policies which advanced the interests of both the French monarchy and the French Reformed Church.

4. Jealous and fearful of this influence, the Duke of Guise and the queen mother Catherine de Medici hired an assassin to kill Coligny. An attempt while the Protestant leader was walking the streets of Paris failed, only leaving him wounded. Gravely concerned, Charles IX promised an investigation and punishment for the plotters.

5. The king’s sympathy created panic among the Catholics, who did all they could to counter Coligny’s influence. Catherine, the Duke and Henri de Anjou (later Henri III) managed - after prolonged psychological pressure - to persuade the feeble-minded monarch that Coligny was really a threat to royal power. On Saturday evening, 23 August, confused Charles lost his temper: “If you want to kill Coligny, I agree, but then kill all the other Huguenots, so that no one will be able to blame me on account of his death!”

6. At 3 am, the Duke and his men surprised and assassinated Admiral Coligny at his lodging. Mortally wounded, he was thrown from his window, his head being kicked on the ground by the Duke. All the other Protestant leaders were killed by the royal guard. Sadly, the young Henry of Navarre instantly professed to be a Catholic to avoid death. While returning to the Reformed party soon afterwards (his evangelical convictions yet doubtful), this was sadly a ‘conversion’ he repeated in later years to gain the crown of France. 

7. Urged on by priests and nuns, the Paris mob attacked Huguenots in their homes for three consecutive days. In the ensuing horror, it is estimated that at least ten thousand lost their lives in the city. The streets flowed with blood and dead bodies were thrown into the Seine. Urged on by Charles and Catherine, the atrocity spread to the provinces. The total number of victims is hard to estimate accurately - 30, 000 might be a conservative figure. It should be said that the Bishop of Lisieux forbad such killing in his diocese. But he was a rare exception.

Second, who were the guilty?

Charles IX surely. He was no match for all the intrigue surrounding him. Yet clearly overwhelmed with remorse, this weak individual suffered acutely. Two years later he died in agony, seeing blood everywhere. Refusing to see his mother at his death bed, he found a measure of comfort through his faithful Huguenot nurse. Catherine herself, a political schemer, had been married to an unfaithful Henri II. An Italian Catholic, and disciple of Machiavelli, she ruthlessly retained her influence. She hated Henri of Navarre and the Protestants, yet died unhappy and almost unnoticed in 1589. Providing the real dynamic behind the Bartholomew massacre, the Duke of Guise was a fanatical Catholic. His partner in the crime, Henri de Anjou, later Henri III, eventually turned against the Duke, having him assassinated at Blois in 1587. Then there’s the Paris mob. Hating their Protestant neighbours for their godly and prosperous life-style, they were stirred up by fanatical priests to kill and plunder. With all restraint gone, the basest human instincts took over.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy was the chief culprit in the atrocity. Always in favour of persecution, the Vatican viewed religious toleration as an unpardonable sin. Pope Pius V had written accordingly to King Charles IX in 1569:

Your majesty must consider as certain that this (namely the restoration of public order) will never take place, as long as the whole kingdom will not accept unanimously and keep faithfully the one and same Catholic religion. In order to reach that goal with God’s help, it is necessary that Your Majesty act without mercy against God’s enemies, his own rebellious subjects, and punish them with the rightful pains and torments stated by the law (cited in Jules M. Nicole, ‘Black Bartholomew’, Christian Graduate, December 1972 (25: 4), 111).

Although Pope Pius V had died by the time of the Bartholomew massacre, his successor Gregory XIII welcomed news of the event, ordering Te Deums to be sung in all the churches. He also had an infamous medal struck to commemorate the Church‘s triumph over ‘heresy’. 

Naturally, King Philip II of Spain rejoiced that Protestantism had been thus suppressed in France. His own scheme to humble Queen Elizabeth I and Protestant England found eventual fruition in the Spanish Armada of 1588, a scheme which, in the merciful providence of Almighty God, ended in ruin.

Not all Catholic princes rejoiced. The Emperor Maximilian II, Charles IX’s father-in-law expressed deep sorrow over the cruelty displayed. Even Charles’ wife, daughter of the emperor, the devoutly-Catholic Elizabeth of Austria pleaded tearfully with her husband that some Protestants who had taken refuge in her room might be spared. The liberal and tolerant Chancellor of France, Michel de l’Hospital was so overwhelmed with grief that he died shortly after the massacre.

Third, what effect did the massacre have on the Lord’s Reformed people in France?

Having observed that over many years the French Reformed churches had provided ‘a vast multitude of most zealous and faithful martyrs, far more in number and quality of sufferers for the Gospel, than in any one of the Reformed Christian nations in Europe’, the English Presbyterian historian of the Huguenots, John Quick (1636-1706) provides a judicious and moving assessment of the aftermath:

The churches after the Parisian massacre were at a stand. That deluge of Protestant blood, which was then shed had exhausted their best spirits. Multitudes were frighted out of their native land, ... and others were frighted out of their religion. In such a dreadful hurricane as that was, no wonder if some leaves, unripe fruit, and rotten withered branches fell to the earth, and were lost irrecoverably. However, a remnant escaped, and, which was no less than a miracle, generally the ministers, God reserving them to gather in another harvest. And the churches in many places revived. God staying the rough wind in the day of His east wind, and giving them a breathing time, a little reviving under their hard bondage (Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 1692, i, p. lx).

John Quick goes on to outline the sad effects of Henri of Navarre’s ‘Paris is worth a mass’ apostasy by which he obtained the throne of France as Henri IV in 1593 . Yet never entirely forgetting his former Protestant friends, he granted them the tolerant provisions of the Edict of Nantes in April 1598. In the decades that followed, the Reformed churches of France flourished until further persecution descended on them during the reign of King Louis XIV. However, we may conclude that this history assures us beyond all doubt the truth of our Saviour’s words that, despite all the persecution of all the ages, ‘the gates of hell will never prevail against His Church’ (see Matt. 16: 18), the true Church of the Reformation and all who faithfully profess the pure truth of the everlasting Gospel.

THE ENGLISH BARTHOLOMEW

Following the end of the Cromwellian era, pent up resentment and revenge burst on the heads of the Puritans. Their attempts to complete the English Reformation proved a disappointment. The restoration of Church and Monarchy prompted appallingly brutal persecution. The regicides were arrested and disembowelled. The Act of Uniformity, coming into force on St Bartholomew’s Day, 24 August 1662, drove around two-thousand puritan clergy from their livings. Many were to experience imprisonment. The day was known as ‘Black Bartholomew’. Clearly the date was deliberately chosen, an intimidating reminder of the French Bartholomew massacre ninety years earlier. J. C. Ryle said of the Act of Uniformity:

Taking all things into consideration, a more impolitic and disgraceful deed never disfigured the annals of a Protestant Church. ... To show the spirit of the ruling party in the Church, they actually added to the number of apocryphal lessons in the Prayer Book calendar at this time. They made it a matter of congratulation among themselves that they had thrust out the Puritans, and got in Bel and the Dragon (‘Richard Baxter’ in Light from Old Times, 1890, 1902 rep. 316-7).

Led by Richard Baxter and others, the Presbyterians made up around two-thirds of this godly company. They were the ‘cheated party’. Being honourable monarchists and moderate revolutionaries did not shield them from the wrath of King and Bishop. They had the misfortune to trust the word of a King who had few of his father’s virtues but several of his vices. Having promised ‘liberty to tender consciences’ at Breda in 1660, Charles soon forgot such seeming magnanimity by the time he reached London. However, with the Restoration, the fruits of the Puritan Revolution were not entirely lost. The new monarchy was never to have the power of the old. The Star Chamber and the High Commission were never revived. Taxation was never again levied without parliamentary consent. 

If England was safe from anarchy, she was not secure from the relentless intrigue of the Roman Catholic Church. While Puritans suffered for nearly thirty years, England’s Protestantism remained threatened. However, even the Cavalier Parliament was too strongly Protestant for King Charles II whose sympathies for popery were known. Indeed, in 1670, the King entered into a treaty with Louis XIV of France to curb the aspirations of the Dutch Calvinist, William of Orange. 

Unknown to Charles’ protestant ministers, the secret clause of the shameful Treaty of Dover (1670) was signed by the Catholic members of the Cabal, Lords Arlington and Clifford. Louis hereby promised to supply Charles with French troops and money if, at an opportune time, Charles would declare himself a Roman Catholic. The article’s chilling words actually read: ‘The King of Great Britain being convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, is determined to declare himself a Catholic...as soon as the welfare of his realm will permit.’

CONCLUSION

If Englishmen had retreated from the anarchy and repression of the revolutionary era, they were not about to forget the danger of Romanism. Parliament maintained the necessity of a protestant church and a protestant monarchy. Roman Catholic influence in the persons of Charles II and James II - the sons of Henrietta Maria - was firmly checked. After the failure of the ill-fated Monmouth rebellion of 1685, it was the ‘Glorious Revolution’ of 1688 that finally ensured a protestant constitution and succession when William and Mary ascended the throne. Constitutional monarchy thus replaced Stuart absolutism. Protestant safeguards were enshrined in the Bill of Rights (1689) and later in the Act of Settlement (1701). With the passing of the Toleration Act (1689), persecuted Nonconformists became legally-worshipping Protestant Dissenters. 

With the aid of Huguenot regiments formed from refugees driven out of France at the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), William of Orange finally rescued this country from the popish menace when he defeated James II at the battle of the Boyne in 1690. During the eighteenth century, England’s Protestantism was reinforced by the Methodist Revival. Until the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829 and the restoration of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales in 1850 (after which Cardinal Manning effectively declared war on protestant England), one may say that the zealous Protestantism of Puritan England continued to exert its liberating power.

Three centuries later, in an age of ecumenical and multi-faith apostasy, we must ensure by God's grace that the essential protestant legacy of the puritan period is maintained. We dare not imagine that the Church of Rome has changed: as surely as she meddled in British politics in the seventeenth century, so she is active in the heart of Europe today.  In view of the UK visit of Pope Benedict XVI in 2010, we cannot deny that these dark forces are still at work. Let us never forget the significance of 24 August. May all who name Christ as Lord and Saviour (and others who value religious liberty) be careful to honour His godly servants of the Reformation era, determined still to ‘contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).

POSTSCRIPT

Dr Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) published An Abridgement of Mr Baxter’s History of His Life and Times with An account of the Ministers...who were Ejected after the Restoration of King Charles II (1702). Integral with his ministry, Calamy clearly felt called of God to transmit the heroic faith of Baxter and his brethren: “To let the Memory of these Men Dye is injurious to Posterity”. His Abridgement involved great courage, and it provoked a storm. At a time of continuing Anglican-inspired hostility to the heirs of the Puritans, this inspiring material marked out Edmund Calamy as ‘the Champion of Nonconformity’.

Apart from modest attention from nonconformist scholars, Dr Calamy is a largely unsung hero of a depressing period in English church history. While he never had the impact of his hero Richard Baxter (and how many could claim that until George Whitefield appeared in 1735?), Calamy shared most of Baxter’s convictions, a good deal of his piety and an equally-strong pastoral and evangelistic commitment. In addition, besides documenting the sacrifice of the ejected ministers of 1662, he perhaps more than any other preacher and theologian transmitted Baxter’s wonderful legacy to the eighteenth century and beyond. 

The Institutionalised Church

When the church of Jesus Christ degenerates into an institution, it ceases to be the church of Christ in any meaningful sense.  An institution is something over which men have complete control, and they exercise their control whenever they have opportunity.  This ensures that the work of the Holy Spirit is quenched because He is unable to work freely in such circumstances.

The institutional church was created when Constantine was 'converted' to Christianity in about 313 AD, and brought the entire empire into the church, and in effect christianised it. The official church, when confronted by the Montanists in the early centuries, opposed this new movement of the Spirit, notwithstanding its errors, a logical response when the church progresses towards a form of institutionalism.

These early moves to institutionalise the church paved the way for the full-blown manifestation of institutionalised religion with the advent of the Roman Catholic institution in the Middle Ages, a body that poses as Christian, but is not.

The institutionalised church takes on the paraphernalia of the state, with its hierarchy of authority and positions and higher offices, etc. Institutions are 'rules ridden' and while rules have their undoubted place, these rules are often used to remove Gospel ministers from dead orthodox churches and to silence the authentic Gospel.

Now a problem arises when Gospel ministers 'take on' and challenge the institution, not by a full frontal confrontation, but by simply preaching the Gospel in the power of the Holy Spirit. When Luther took on the Roman institution, the entire armoury of the church institution was brought out against him. And the result? Luther was removed from his ministry within the church of that time.

And when Gospel ministers do likewise in today's increasingly decadent church, exactly the same response is discovered - Gospel ministers are removed, to the relief of the institutions best and most loyal servants. No doubt they will be rewarded in die course by the church; what reward they are likely to receive from the Lord is an altogether different matter.

FANNY JONES

Fanny Jones (1805-77) was the equally-amazing wife of the amazing Welsh preacher, John Jones, Talsarn (1796-1857).

'As Welsh people we are under a great debt to this woman, ...we can never measure the work she did in being an instrument to give ‘the People’s Preacher’ to the people...In her self denial, Wales heard a message from Heaven - her efforts facilitated the way for Wales to be drenched by the irresistible eloquence of the ‘hero from Talysarn’ (O. Llew. Owain of Talysarn, Cofiant Mrs Fanny Jones, tr. Marian G. Clifford).

Fanny's story is not only touchingly-inspirational. She remains a challenge to women of all ages and eras. She is also a Christian rebuke to modern feminist ideas of womanhood. She would even have taught Margaret Thatcher a few things! Between them, John & Fanny Jones provide wonderful role models. They are a glorious antidote to apostate institutional religion and the bankrupt warring political factions of our secular times.

As the attached extract (from an ongoing project on her life*) shows, Fanny Jones helps us to live life and also to face death. 

There's much more about her to come...  WATCH THIS SPACE!

Yours faithfully,

Dr Alan C. Clifford

* included in a forthcoming biography on her husband.

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.

AMYRALDIAN ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE 2013

  Norwich Reformed Church

A REFUGE FOR THE GUILTY RACE*

Amyraldian Features in Welsh Calvinism

AMYRALDIAN ASSOCIATION

Affirming Calvin’s Authentic Biblical Christianity

NINTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Attleborough Baptist Church

Norfolk

11-12 APRIL 2013

*derived from words by William Williams, Pantycelyn

THE THINKING BEHIND THE THEME

Building on the discoveries of previous conferences, we extend our investigations to Wales, this year being the tercentenary of the birth of the eminent Calvinistic Methodist preacher Daniel Rowland (1713-90). At its most basic, our conference seeks to highlight the theme shared by this year’s Banner of Truth Ministers’ Conference: ‘The Gospel: What it is and Why it matters’. However, despite our appeal to Banner publications, most brethren at Leicester are unlikely to share our stance. Since the Bible makes it clear that the Gospel of Christ has a global reach (Matt. 28: 19; Mk. 16: 15; Jn.3: 16), no member of the human race is to be denied the message of mercy, even though many reject it. True, only a portion of humanity will be saved—God’s elect. It is equally true that the provision and offer of pardon are universal. Otherwise there is no ‘Good News for every creature’. Hence our Saviour’s atoning death has a ‘double reference’: to all mankind in general and to the believing elect in particular. This ‘duality’ is basic to the Amyraldian view of the Gospel.  

WHAT ARE ‘AMYRALDIAN FEATURES’?

During his heresy trial at the National Synod of Alençon (1637), Moïse Amyraut declared that ‘Jesus Christ died for all men sufficiently, but for the elect only effectually: and that consequentially his intention was to die for all men in respect of the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect only in respect of its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy; which is to say, that Christ’s will was that the sacrifice of his cross should be of an infinite price and value, and most abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; yet nevertheless the efficacy of his death appertains only unto the elect;...for this was the most free counsel and gracious purpose both of God the Father, in giving his Son for the salvation of mankind, and of the Lord Jesus Christ, in suffering the pains of death, that the efficacy thereof should particularly belong unto all the elect, and to them only…’ (John Quick, Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 1692, ii. 354).

It is our conviction that, contrary to ‘received wisdom’, these ‘Amyraldian features’ were present in Welsh Calvinism, especially among the Calvinistic Methodists. The distinguished author Dr Eifion Evans helps set the scene for us. The North Wales Methodist leader, Thomas Jones of Denbigh’s ‘great contribution lay in steering the Methodism of the [19th] century safely between the rocks of Arminianism and High Calvinism...both Thomas Jones and Thomas Charles [Bala] were following in the tradition of Rowland and Williams’ (Daniel Rowland and the Great Evangelical Awakening in Wales, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985, 339).

‘High Calvinism’ is properly defined as the theology of Theodore Beza, the Westminster Confession and John Owen, as distinct from the original teaching of John Calvin which Amyraut claimed to reaffirm as ‘authentic Calvinism’. Losing Calvin’s biblical balance, ‘High Calvinism’ was the prelude to the antinomian hypercalvinism which blighted Wales for a while, as it did England and elsewhere. In short, the Owenite ‘limited atonement’ teaching created evangelistic and pastoral havoc, as it still does.

This year’s conference examines the theological, devotional and practical significance of the following summary:

The Methodist Fathers were never, at first, Hyper-Calvinists,...The doctrine that was undoubtedly believed among them was that of the Articles of the Established Church, and in agreement with these they preached Jesus Christ as a sufficient Saviour for the whole world, inviting all to him. One need only read the journal of Howell Harris, the sermons of Daniel Rowland, and the hymns of William Williams, to see that they laid down no limits to the value of the Saviour's sacrifice. But just as one extreme always produces the opposite, many of the Calvinists, in the warmth of their zeal against the Wesleyans, claimed that there was no universal aspect to the call of the gospel; that the elect alone were to be called… 

John Morgan Jones & William Morgan, tr. John Aaron, The Calvinistic Methodist Fathers of Wales (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2008), ii. 605.                   (ACC)

A Presbyterian Republic?

I came across this interesting paper this morning, a paper that emanated from the Scottish Covenanters and proposed the setting up of a republic in these islands and get rid of the monarchy.

I would be very pleased to hear your views on the contents of this historic paper.

 The Queensferry Paper.

 The Queensferry Paper was so called  because it was discovered in the pocket of a Covenanter, Henry Hall of Haughshead, when he was seized at South Queensferry on 4 June 1680. Hall was in the company of Donald Cargill when they were discovered and an attempt made to arrest them. Cargill made good his escape but Hall subsequently died from his wounds. The document is thought to have been a manifesto intended to be taken by Hall to Holland where dissident Scots  could consider a new Presbyterian system for Scotland.

 Smellie in Men of the Covenant calls the paper “the most advanced of all the Covenanting manifestos “. It was a bond strong in its affirmations and denials; made a solemn confession of faith and frankly disavowed sinful rulers. It further made a declaration in favour of a republic. The document was the first formal statement of the dissident group that became known known as the Cameronians, MacMillanites and Reformed Presbyterians. A document of some 6,000 words it is much longer and definitive than the Declaration at Sanquhar which was made shortly after on 22 June 1680.

 The substance of the document given in Hewisons The Covenanters, ( the lengthy full text is in Johnson`s Treasury)  was :

 1. To covenant with and swear acknowledgement of the Trinity and to own the Old and New Testaments to be the rule of faith.

2. To advance God`s kingdom, free the church from Prelacy and Erastianism, and remove those who had forfeited authority.

3. To uphold the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, with her standards, polity, and worship, as an independent government.

4. To overthrow the kingdom of darkness, ie Popery, Prelacy and Erastianism.

5. To discard the royal family and set up a republic.

6. To decline hearing the indulged clergy.

7. To refuse the ministerial function unless duly called and ordained.

8. To defend their worship and liberties, to view assailants as declarers of war, to destroy those assaulting, and not to injure any `but those that have injured us`.[i]

 The fifth article recites the reasons for rejecting rule by a single person (the monarchy) and declares:

We do declare that we shall set up over ourselves, and over what the Lord shall give us power of, government and governors according to the Word of God, and especially that Word, Exodus xviii.21:`Moreover, though shalt  provide out of all the people, able men, such as fear God , men of truth, hating covetousness, and place such over them; to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundred, rulers of fifties , and rulers of tens.`  That we shall no more commit the government of  ourselves, and the making of laws for us, to any one single person, or lineal successor, we not being by God, as the Jews were, bound to one single family; and this kind of government by a single person being most liable to inconveniences, and aptest to degenerate into tyranny, as sad and long experience hath taught us.

No Place Like Rome?

With the process going on to elect a new pope, it is highly advantageous in this ecumenical age to inform ourselves of just how far Rome is from the Christian Church.  This is a man-made religion that has no warrant in the Scriptures, and as the years go by, the deeper her iniquity becomes.

Read these lines again, as supplied by Dr Alan C Clifford, Minister of Norwich Reformed Church.

NO PLACE LIKE ROME? 

Alan C. Clifford

PREPARING FOR

THE QUINCENTENARY OF THE

GLORIOUS PROTESTANT REFORMATION

(1517-2017)

Avoiding Rome’s predictable lies and her inevitable ecumenical deception in the run-up to this event,
we unashamedly issue the following statement:

1. The Pope’s religion is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ.
2. The Pope’s church is not the true Church of Jesus Christ.
So, since the Pope may be identified as ‘antichrist’ (as many Continental and British theologians have cogently argued in past centuries), conversion to the Roman Catholic Church is a retrograde and tragic step. While the apostate condition of many Protestant Churches (including the ‘feminized’ and ‘sodomized’ Church of England) gives sufficient cause for disillusionment, the Roman option cannot provide a safe or satisfying spiritual home. As affirmed in the doctrinal declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), Rome claimed to be the only ‘correct’ church. In a more recent decree (2007), we are told that ‘Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century’ cannot be ‘called Churches in the proper sense’. However, Rome’s claim could not be more invalid. The proof is as follows:

I The doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church are utterly inconsistent with the plain teaching of the New Testament. The finality of Christ’s unique sacrifice and His priestly intercession (see Hebrews 9: 28; 10: 11-12) rule out the sacrifice of the mass and a human priesthood. The theory of transubstantiation is an absurd philosophical fiction and utterly detrimental to the simple symbolism of the Lord’s Supper - a
memorial of our Saviour’s once-for-all sacrifice. Thus His blood shedding is remembered not repeated, on a
table not an altar (hence ministers are pastors not priests); His real presence is spiritual, not physical, in the
hearts of His people and not in the bread and wine.

II Justification by faith in Christ’s merit alone (see Romans 5: 1-9) and direct access to Him as sole Mediator (see Matthew 11: 28; 1 Timothy 2: 5) rule out the false, idolatrous and pretentious teaching that Mary is Mediatrix, a ‘female mediator’ through whom we approach our Saviour. Calling our Lord’s mother ‘Queen of Heaven’ has turned her into a goddess! The idea that the merits of the faithful are a necessary contribution to their salvation undermines the all-sufficiency of Christ’s merit. Rome’s traditional mistake in making sanctification a part of justification arises from her reliance on the Latin justificare instead of the Greek dikaioo. While the former verb means ‘to make righteous’, the latter means ‘to declare righteous’ by the remission of sins through faith in the blood of Christ (see Romans 4: 5-8; 5: 1, 9). Our pardon is provided by Christ’s sacrificial righteousness alone, imputed to all who trust in Him.
While good works are a necessary and certain fruit of saving faith (see Galatians 5: 6; Ephesians 2: 8-10), their imperfection rules them out from justifying us. Our persons and our performances alike always require
pardon. That said, Christian sainthood is the present status of true though imperfect believers (see Ephesians
1: 1-2) not that of dead believers canonised by the Church of Rome.

III Thus purgatory and prayers for the dead (including requiem masses) have no apostolic warrant. Those who die ‘in Christ’ have no need of our prayers. Those who die otherwise cannot be helped by them.
Besides corrupting Baptism and the Holy Communion, Rome arrogantly added five more supposed sacraments to those commanded by Christ. Her realignment of the Ten Commandments - combining the first two and dividing the tenth - obscure in summary form God’s prohibition of the idolatry of such popular graven images as crucifixes and statues of Mary. Venerating the bones of the saints and other relics breeds superstition. Other distortions of divine truth are no less serious. The Pope’s title ‘Holy Father’ is a blasphemous insult to God the Father (see John 17: 11). His claim to be the ‘vicar of Christ’ is a further insult to the Holy Spirit, Christ’s true representative on earth (see John 14: 16-17). The political claims of a highly fallible Papacy conflict with Christ's words that His kingdom ‘is not of this world’ (John 18: 36). Rome’s entire governmental structure-- pope, cardinals, archbishops, etc--has more in common with ancient imperial Rome than the apostolic Presbyterian order of the New Testament.

Rome’s growing ambition to dominate Europe as in the days of the Holy Roman Empire is a re-emerging tyranny to be resisted by individual Christians and national governments alike. Ever since the Reformation, the Papacy has always been opposed to the independence of the United Kingdom. Her arrogance is at odds with Christ’s liberating truth (see John 8: 32, 36; Galatians 5: 1).

IV In addition to theological objections, the track record of Roman Catholicism does not commend itself. For violent and bloody persecution, no organization can compete with Rome. Since the true Church of Christ is ‘persecuted’ rather than ‘persecutor’, this one consideration alone makes Rome’s claim to
‘correctness’ null and void (see John 15: 20-1; 2 Timothy 3:12). Besides the burnings of the sixteenth-century British reformers, the dreadful cruelties inflicted on the ancient Waldensians, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Protestants and others (including Jews, Muslims and Eastern Orthodox) have never been truly repented of-- since the doctrine directing these atrocities remains in tact. Indeed, under another name--The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Inquisition still exists.

Current persecution of Protestants in Central and South America shows no change in Rome’s methods where she has a free hand. The intrigue and corrupting influence of the Jesuits knows no parallel. Vatican complicity in the rise of Hitler and the Nazi holocaust is well attested. The evils of the confessional and the ‘unholy wedlock’ of supposedly celibate priests refute Rome’s sanctimonious image. While marital failure among protestant pastors is to be lamented, is it any wonder that paedophilia and HIV are rife among sexually-frustrated and homosexual Roman priests?

V Considering the post-reformation dogmas of Mary’s immaculate conception (1854), papal
infallibility (1870) and the Assumption of Mary (1950), the Church of Rome is even more apostate
than she was in Luther and Calvin’s day. Thus any form of ecumenism on Rome’s terms is nothing but
satanic delusion (see 2 Thessalonians 2: 1-12). Especially in the wake of Dominus Iesus, when naïve and gullible evangelicals, charismatics and others try to persuade us that ‘Rome is changing’, ask them which of her antibiblical dogmas has Rome renounced? Indeed, the late Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was right to say that “The Roman Catholic Church is the devil’s greatest masterpiece.” May all God’s people understand the
‘signs of the times’ and cease not ‘contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). Amen!

Dr Alan C. Clifford,
Pastor, Norwich Reformed Church
www.nrchurch.co.nr

John Jones - Reformed Pastor par excellence

Dr Alan C. Clifford wrote this excellent piece:

Although John Jones had been preaching for several years, and had become famous throughout Wales and beyond, he had not received full ordination at this time. However, this occurred in the Bala Association in June 1829, when five others were ordained with him. At the close of the ordination service, John Elias delivered the charge. In the same Association, in the evening of the last day, John Jones preached on the words, ‘The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the mul titude of isles be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness are round about Him; righteousness and judgment are the habitation of His throne’ (Psalm 97: 1-2). He was aware of the deep and solemn importance of ordination to the full calling of the Christian ministry. ‘His own sensitive spirit was deeply moved’, wrote Owen Jones, ‘and his sermon that night was delivered with great power. The Revd John Hughes, Wrexham, preached after him. In speaking of the event, Mr Hughes said, “It would have been disheartening even for John Elias to rise up after him”’.

Ever since the first ordinations of 1811, the Calvinistic Methodists were aware of the high privileges and responsibilities of an ordained  ministry. Freed at last from the shackles of Anglicanism, they were able to develop, establish and express a truly Reformed view of the Church. From a Continental perspective, the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists were truly ‘The Reformed Churches of Wales’, later known as the Presbyterians of Wales - without denying that other branches of Welsh Nonconformity share some characteristics of Reformed churchmanship. The Confession of 1823 outlined the ethos and duties of the people of God, which John Jones and his brethren promised solemnly to uphold, teach and maintain: 

Christ the head of the church, has instituted ordinances, means of grace, and an order of worship, to be used in the church by all his people, - in private, in the family, and in the congregation. Through these ordinances, God gives grace, and nourishes and increases the grace given. They are the ordinances of preaching, reading and hearing the word, prayer, praise, mutual instruction, conversation [cydymddyddan], the exercise of every part of church discipline, and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

Whatever biblical reservations John Jones entertained about the ‘Owenite’ features of Article 18 ‘Of Redemption’, he was fully committed to Article 37.  In his high views of the sacraments, he was neither Baptist nor Anglican. Furthermore, ‘he was anxious to keep these high in the estimation of the people’.

Regarding baptism, John Jones’s own family experience - as a son of godly parents and now a father of a growing family - was a constant reminder of God’s covenant mercies. Owen Jones creates a beautiful picture of John Jones’s understanding of the ordinance of covenant baptism:

And whenever the Sacrament of Baptism or of the Lord’s Supper was administered by him, he always performed the duty with the solemnity that was due to the occasion. In the case of the Sacrament of Baptism, he would deliver an appropriate address upon the duties which parents owe to their children, upon the profession of Christ made through baptism, the importance of bringing up the young in the church; at other times he would speak of the meaning of the Sacrament, and of the great change that was signified by it. Some of these addresses were very thrilling, and his prayers were always fervent for the blessing of God upon the parents and the children.

Owen Jones’s account of John Jones’s celebration of the Lord’s Supper is a narrative of exquisite rapture, and deserves to be quoted in full:

His administration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was more impressive still. This is done in Wales generally at the close of the service. After prayer and consecration the minister goes round the members with the bread and wine; and while doing so he speaks words appropriate to the occasion. Mr John Jones always took some special point in connection with the death of Christ: His love, His humiliation, His self-denial and obedience to the will of God; the sufficiency of His sacrifice, the cleansing through His blood, &c.; and he dwelt upon it, and expressed his thoughts until gradually he became warmed by the subject; his ideas flowed as from a fountain; his mind was thrilled; those emotions passed from him to the congregation; the people became absorbed in the same great subject; and they forgot themselves at last, and seemed lost in a sea of gladness and Divine joy. We have heard it said that his addresses at the Communion table were at times so fervent, so glowing, so heavenly, that the people could hardly venture from a feeling of awe and reverence to take the elements from his hand. 

A uniquely-glorious experience of such heavenly joy was felt when John Jones was preaching at the Tabernacle, Bangor one Lord’s Day evening in the early summer of 1835. Again, Owen Jones paints the wonderful picture:

The service commenced at six o’clock. The sermon was not over till half past eight. Nevertheless, the people were not tired; under the spell of his oratory time was forgotten. On this occasion there was a Communion service to be at the close. The sermon itself was impressive; and the congregation had been worked up to a high pitch of emotion. It was felt at the Communion table that the service went on with great ease. The preacher was in a most elevated mood, and grace was evidently being poured into his lips, and a live coal from the altar of the sanctuary had touched them; so that they glowed with peculiar eloquence that evening. The preacher had gone round the large chapel with the bread, and was now returning for the wine. He took the cups in his hands, and held them up with the wine in them, and with his sweet voice he said, “Do you see, my friends, how the wine begins to redden?” These words, with those beautiful notes of his, ran electrically through the multitude. The tears rushed to the eyes of many, as if to see what was the cause of such a shock, and they gave vent to their emotions in words; and probably there was not a man who did not feel that moment something creeping shudderingly over him. After a while there was perfect silence again, and he went on speaking upon the “precious blood of Christ.” The time had gone; no one thought of looking upon the clock. Their minds had been absorbed. It was after ten o’ clock when he commenced praying in order to close the meeting. He said, “Indeed, Lord, we would have praised Thee to-night, only that it has gone late. Blessed be God, because we have hopes of going into a country where there will be no record of time to disturb our worship; and because we can hope for the day when we shall never become tired of the house of God.” Before he had gone any farther, the feelings of the people became too warm again; and their voices drowned the voice of the preacher; and there they remained till it was eleven o’clock.

Such were the amazing labours of the Revd John Jones, Talsarn. For all the joys of heaven poured out in such abundance, his Lord’s day travels denied him any rest. He often had to preach in three places, many miles apart, each service concluding with the Lord’s Supper and sometimes a baptism. Clearly his ordination as a minister of the Gospel had a profound influence upon him. His biographer appropriately describes this period in the preacher’s career: ‘He consecrated his energies, his talents, and his genius more than ever to the great cause of Christ. And though his toil was incessant and his labours excessive, yet he was employed with the work he delighted to be in; and he enjoyed times of most thorough refreshing and happiness. His ministry advanced in power, and his popularity became greater still’.

The God Who Speaks.

One of the distinctive things about the Christian faith is that in it (and in it alone), we have the God Whom we worship actually speaking to His children.   Now think on that for a moment!  Unlike every other God, our God, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the speaking God.  Do you hear Him?  What is He saying to you?  Have you heard Him speaking to your heart as you read the Scriptures?  When you sat in church listening to a sermon, have you heard God speak to you personally?  Our God is the speaking God. 

To sit and listen to the Lord talking right into our hearts is as strange as it is astonishing.  It’s not strange that God speaks, but it is somewhat strange that He should speak to the likes of us.  Yes, He speaks!  And every time He speaks to us, He accomplishes something significant in us – He either softens our hearts to love Him more – and that’s what we want; or, He hardens our hearts so that when we read His Word, we do not hear Him speaking to us – and that’s what we do not want!  It all depends upon our attitude when we approach Him in the Scriptures.

In His providence, He brought my mind to Habakkuk 3:17-18, and through these verses, He spoke to me.  ^”For the fig tree shall not flourish, neither shall fruit be in the vines: the labour of the olive shall fail, and the fields shall yield no meat: the sheep shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no bullock in the stalls.  But I will rejoice in the Lord: I will joy in the God of my salvation.” 

The prophet had to learn the lesson that despite our circumstances, if we lose everything, we can still rejoice in the Lord.  We also need to learn that same lesson.  Yet, it’s a lesson we do not want to learn.  We are so desirous of our possessions and the things (and people) we hold dear that we want them more than we want the LORD.  Totally understandable, of course.  We do not even want to dare the Lord to take everything from us, in case He might take us at our word and grant us just that!  Yet once we learn this valuable lesson, we will be truly liberated, and enabled to rise above our circumstances, for that’s where Jesus actually is.  And we will “joy in the God of [my] salvation.” 

The KJV brings this out beautifully when it translates the first word as “Although” and the beginning of v.18 with “Yet.”  This highlights the “although” and the “yet” of Christian faith.  “Although” for one reason or another, we are currently going through tough times, “yet” we will rejoice in the Lord...  We must refuse to allow the ‘although’ of adversities to quench our faith or extinguish our living hope in Christ.

How wonderful are these words. If nothing in life flourishes and no fruit comes of our labours; and although the animals fail to produce, this is not the end of the world for us.  If we lose all that’s precious to us, our relationship with our precious Saviour is not one whit diminished.  If the worst happens, “yet” will I “rejoice in the Lord; I will joy in the God of my salvation.”

Only the true Christian can say this from the heart.  Can you?

I mentioned recently the disturbing thoughts Margaret had regarding her cancer and her brain condition.  Such disturbing thoughts came to me, too. I told her that I was being plagued with thoughts that the Lord is preparing me for being on my own, for widower-hood, and for life without having her with me.  That may or may not be true, I don’t know; but because I have no evidence that this is what is happening, I had to put such annoying thoughts right out of my mind, and put on again the “helmet of salvation” (Eph.6:17) to protect my mind from such disturbing thoughts. 

Praying has been difficult for both of us, due to the weakness of the flesh and the sinfulness of our hearts.  What a re-assurance it is to know that you, and many others, having been ‘holding the ropes’ of prayer during this time.  We have tried to keep up our praying, but at times it has been so difficult, a struggle.  Yet, the truly amazing thing is that God, by His Spirit, has given me the urge to pray at different times, and I have followed this urge and found myself having greater liberty in prayer at such times.  When you feel the urge to pray, then pray; for this is God’s Spirit at work.

God's Love for the World

Jn 3:16

Since the atonement proceeds from the heart of a loving God, what He “gave” may be understood in two senses.  First, “God gave the Son by sending Him into the world; but second, He gave the Son on the Cross.”[1]  It is the Father’s love that the Cross displays.  The Cross was not wrung from an unwilling deity.  Morris explains that the Greek construction has the following emphasis: it is not that “God loved so as to give,” but that “God loved so that He gave.”[2]  So the love of God is not a sentimental thing but is a love that costs.  Denney speaks of God’s sin-bearing love.  Love mattered a great deal to John[3] because it mattered much to God. 

Wesley’s exposition of the most favour verse in the Bible is that “God so loved the world - That is, all men under heaven; even those that despise his love, and will for that cause finally perish.”  No restriction is discernible in Wesley’s notes on this verse.  Notwithstanding his alleged Arminianism, he claimed many times that his theology was “on the very edge of Calvinism,” or a “hair’s breadth from Calvinism.”[4]  For him, salvation was all of God’s free grace; he affirms unregenerate man’s inability in anything pertaining to his salvation, and excludes all merit from man in his salvation.  Using ‘man’ in its generic sense, he recognises no limitation of the atonement to the elect only.  Even the Schofield Reference Notes[5] equate “κosmos” with “mankind,” as does A. T. Robertson.[6]  He cites the universal aspect of God’s love for the κosmos as appearing in 2 Cor.5:19 and in Rom.5:8.

Henry states that “the offer that is made of salvation is general, that whosoever believes in him, without exception, might have benefit by him.”[7]  This Puritan adds no restriction to the intention of God in sending His Son because it was “the world” that He “so loved.”  Any exegesis that refuses to accept this is seriously flawed because it is not dealing with the text qua text.  Scholasticism, especially of the Reformed variety, does serious damage to this most powerful and best known and loved of all biblical texts, and makes it say what John never intended it to say.  DML-J’s soteriology - “His love was so great that he sent his only Son into the world.  We read: ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life,’ Jn.3:16”[8] -  is quite at home in the company of men like Henry and Wesley on this point.  Or again,

“For the moment humanity comes to see and to believe that, it will realise that its only hope is the hope that is offered in this Gospel.  The gospel says, ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life, Jn.3:16.’”[9]

Milne is better on this verse than he was on Jn 1:29.  Here, he writes “The all-inclusive scope of God’s love” is set out in “indiscriminate” terms, adding that it “embrac[es] every man, woman and child.”[10] The object of God’s love is the world, according to Milne, is understood in terms of its “badness,” but not as clearly in terms of its “bigness.”  He agrees that this world is fallen and is organised in rebellion against God, but refuses to concede that the term is inclusive of all mankind, thus placing him in disagreement with DML-J.  

Hendriksen also agrees that “the object of this love is the world.”[11]  The term, he says, “refers to mankind, though sin-laden, exposed to judgement, in need of salvation.”  This accurately represents the Bible’s overall view of the world.  All mankind falls into this eternally dangerous spiritual situation, and it was all mankind that was/is the object of God’s love.  Comparing this statement with those of DML-J, one is impressed with the degree of agreement that is evident on this central matter of the faith.  He preaches,

“That is the vital question.  ‘What think ye of Christ?’ Matt.22:42.  And the Holy Spirit answers that question throughout that amazing record we call the New Testament.  Here it is, in one verse.  ‘God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life, Jn.3:16.’”[12]

Disappointingly, Hendriksen reverts to his rigid confessionalism when he expounds Jn 4:42, explaining that the world of which Jesus Christ is the Saviour “consists of elect from every nation.”[13] 

This does not reflect the exegesis of a scholar who is “captive to the Word” and to the divinely-inspired text.  No doubt at his ordination he would have consented to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments being the only infallible rule of faith and practice, but confessionalism carries with it the constant danger of elevating the confessional standards of the church above the Scripture, and can even contribute to a dishonest subscription of these standards. 

Turning to J. C. Ryle (1816-1900), we discover the same teaching and emphasis as is found in Calvin.  Ryle, whose “Expository Thoughts” on the Gospels are published by the Banner of Truth Trust,[14] states with utmost clarity that the “world” that “God so loved” “means the whole race of mankind, both saints and sinner, without any exception.”[15]  Whilst acknowledging the views of men like Hutcheson, Lampe and Gill to be different in that they all see “the world” exclusively in terms of “God’s elect out of every nation, whether Jews or Gentiles, ...”[16]  Ryle maintains that the text of Scripture must be taken in its normal meaning.  Despite his saying that “By His death He purchased pardon and complete redemption for sinners,”[17] he was not thereby implying any implicit restriction in the design of the atonement.  Ryle knew that all are sinners; he was not saying that the redemption purchased by Christ was limited to particular sinners.  It was for the world that “God so loved.” 

Nor does Ryle deny that God has a special covenant love for His saints, for he expressly says that He does.  Nor does he find any weight in the objections levelled against his theory.[18]  His famous statement, “I have long since come to the conclusion that men may be more systematic in their statements than the Bible, and may be led into grave error by idolatrous veneration of a system,”[19] must be kept in mind constantly.  These wise words from the saintly preacher will serve to guide us well if we give them due weight in all our deliberations.

Dr John Davenant (1572-1641), the highly respect and thorough Calvinist, demonstrates that the view of the atonement preached by DML-J was not new or novel.  As a commissioner to the Synod of Dordt (1618-1619), Davenant held to the universal atonement position, and defended it against all antagonists.  In his Dissertation on the Death of Christ, which was appended originally to his substantial commentary of Pauls’ letter to the Colossians,[20] Davenant contended that “the promise of the Gospel is universal.”[21] In Christ’s death (quoting Calvin), God had “put an universal mark, both that he might invite all men promiscuously to the participation of life, and that he might leave the unbelieving without excuse.”[22]  Calvin affirms that despite there being nothing in the world to merit the love of God, “Yet he shows himself to be propitious to the whole world; since he calls all without exception to believe in Christ.”  This is Calvin’s soteriological position, as approved by Davenant, who proceeds to affirm that both he and Calvin held tenaciously to the doctrine of God which affirms His opening the eyes of the elect only, to believe in and receive Christ.

Davenant distances himself from all human reason and fancy by extracting his beliefs from the testimony of Holy Scripture.  The Scriptures teach, he states, “that the death of Christ, according to the will of God, is an universal remedy, by the Divine appointment, and the nature of the thing itself, applicable for salvation to all and every individual of mankind.”[23]  The Cross is the divinely provided universal remedy for the whole world.  This salvation is received if any sinner repents of his sin and trusts Christ to save him.  The “whosoever” of this verse demands an openness and availability to all who desire it.  He continues, “the intention and offering of Christ in giving himself includes all mankind, in like manner as that of the Father in sending his Son,” and refers to this verse.[24]  He further affirms, “The death of Christ, and the design of God embracing all mankind promiscuously is excellently expressed,” and refers to Jn 3:16.  In order to maintain the Bible’s own perfect theological balance, Davenant adds, “But he so loved his sheep, his children, his church, that he determined by his death effectually to derive to them faith and eternal life.”[25]

When the preaching of DML-J is consulted, you will discover an identical emphasis in his evangelistic sermons.[26]

John Owen (1616-1683) has his own exposition of this verse to offer.  He denies that “the world” is to be taken in its natural usage, but instead insists that it means the following: “‘the world,’ miserable, sinful, lost men of all sorts, not only Jews but Gentiles also, which he peculiarly loved...”[27]  His understanding limits the term “the world” to the elect.

This is not an isolated statement of the great Puritan theologian.  Later on he writes,

By the “world,” we understand the elect of God only, though not considered in this place as such, but under such a notion as, being true of them, serves for the farther exaltation of God’s love towards them, which is the end here designed; and this is, as they are poor, miserable, lost creatures in the world, of the world, scattered abroad in all places of the world, not tied to Jews or Greeks, but dispersed in any nation, kindred, and language under heaven.[28]

So Dr Owen is quite explicit in his exposition of this particular term.  The “world” does not mean the “world” at all, but means ‘only’ the elect of God, and none else.  If this was what John intended, he would surely have said so, so as to avoid confusion.  Scripture’s clarity is challenged by this expository method, and evangelistic preaching thrown into disarray.  DML-J, while a great admirer of Owen, could not be further from the Puritan on this point.  What he preaches is much closer to Baxter’s soteriology.

Joseph Hall reminds us that, “The heirs of Calvin have sometimes departed from the balance of the Genevan Reformer, allowing the nerve of evangelism to be severely strained, if not cut altogether.”[29]

Turning to Calvin, we find an exposition that accords more or less with all the above except Owen and Gill, and to a lesser extent Milne and Hendriksen.  The Reformer writes, “As also it is said in John 3:16 that God so loved the world that He spared not His own Son, but delivered Him to death for our sakes.”[30]  Those for whose “sakes” God loved and “spared not His own Son” is described in universal terms - “the world.” 

Again, he writes,

And whenever our sins press hard on us, whenever Satan would drive us to despair, we must hold up this shield, that God does not want us to be overwhelmed in everlasting destruction, for He has ordained His Son to be the Saviour of the world.[31]  

Calvin’s authentic Gospel is therefore clearly expressed, and it is now incumbent upon those who deny this clear statement to explain in what terms God did not send His Son to redeem the world than for others to explain what the contrary meaning is.  

When DML-J’s sermons are laid alongside the expositions of other preachers and theologians, certain clear features will be discovered.  For example, when preaching on the Kingdom of God, he affirmed,

No, the message is this: God ‘hath visited and redeemed his people,’ Lk.1:68.  ‘God so loved the world’ – this world, this damned, foolish, evil world that you and I live in and of which we are all a part by nature – God so loved it, ‘that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth should not perish, but have everlasting life,’ Jn.3:16.’”[32]

Again,

“‘God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son’ Jn.3:16.  His concern for this world and its people was so great that ‘When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...’ Gal.4:4.  ... and pointing to that cross he says to the whole world, ‘Believe on my Son and I will forgive you all your sins.”[33] 

His was a message for all.  He had no concerns for the scholastic notion of the Saviour dying for the non-elect because he was simply preaching what God has revealed in the Gospel.  No attempt was made to squeeze it into a confessional Procrustean bed.  Not once did he call for the compliance officer of high Calvinism to make the Gospel say something the original writer had not intended it to say.  His was a broad Gospel that encompassed the whole world and all humanity.  Why did God send His Son into the world?  Let DML-J answer this vitally important question.  He states,

“He sent his only Son into the world, even to the cross to die, his body to be broken, his blood to be shed, so that ‘whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life,’” Jn. 3:16.[34] 

This Gospel offered a real and sincere salvation for “whosoever believeth.”[35]  “Here is the message of the New Testament, this is Christian salvation,” he preaches.  Implied in this is that whoever limits or restricts in any way the biblical Gospel for all, offering a salvation for will who believe, is not preaching the authentic Christian message.  There is nothing that stands in the way of any sinner being everlastingly saved; all that is required of him is faith in Christian and repentance that leads to life.  Using the outward means of grace that God has provided for His children will enable their growth in grace and in the knowledge of Christ.  There is no hope for the world apart from this message.[36]  There is no Christ but the One Who was given by the Father to redeem the world.[37]  Behind all that happened on the Cross there was and is a heart of love, a love that sent God’s Son to die on the Cross for this rebellious, insulting, rejecting and chaotic world.[38]  This was DML-J’s Gospel content, without delimitation, without it being diluted, or being made to conform to any man-made standard, however good.  His Gospel was not Arminianism, though it shared with Arminianism this feature of the Gospel universality, and the condition of faith as the means of receiving the offered salvation..  The Gospel was for the world, in DML-J’s view, because the salvation it offered was for the world.

Again, the discerning eye will see that in his soteriology DML-J was closer to Calvin than Owen or Gill, closer to Davenant and Baxter and Ryle and Hall than to those who denied that Christ died for any but the elect. 

---

[1]    Morris, 1972:229.

[2]    Ibid.  This nuanced point is easily missed because of its subtlety but it is worth making. 

[3]    Jn 3:16 is John’s first use of αγαπαω, a verb he uses some 36 times in this Gospel and 31 times in First

       John.

[4]    Cited in Roger E. Olson at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/01/arminian-theology-is-       evangelical-theology-long/ Accessed 27/01/13.  See also Thomas Oden’s book John Wesley’s Scriptural Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), where he quotes from Wesley’s “Minutes of 1745.”  This was where Wesley met regularly with students for specifically theological discussions.  He records in answer to Question 23: Wherein may we come to the very edge of Calvinism?  Answer: (1) In ascribing all good to the free grace of God. (2.) In denying all natural free will, and all power antecedent to grace. And (3.) In excluding all merit from man, even for what he has or does by the grace of God.” (p. 253).

[5]    1917 edition.

[6]    Robertson on Jn 3:16.

[7]    See his commentary on this verse.

[8]    DML-J selection, #198.

[9]    DML-J selection, #213.

[10]    Milne, 1993:77.

[11]    Hendriksen, 1953:140.

[12]    DML-J selection, #215.

[13]    Hendriksen, 1953:176.

[14]    The irony of this must not be missed.  The Banner of Truth Trust is very keen to publish works by Ryle, Baxter, Davenant, Edwards, Bellamy, McCheyne, DML-J, Blanchard, etc while maintaining that it is committed to the Reformed Faith.  This is important because this publisher, by its editorial decisions, is stating that the views of the men mentioned fall truly within the reformed designation.  Whether or not there are signs of theological schizophrenia is for others to ascertain.

[15]    Ryle, 1869/1987:158.

[16]    Ibid.

[17]    On p.144.

[18]    Ryle, 1869/1987:159.

[19]    Ibid.

[20]    Reprinted by the Banner of Truth Trust in 2005 but without the “Dissertation on the Death of Christ.”.

[21]    Davenant, 1832/2006:18.

[22]    Calvin as cited in Davenant 1832/2006:19.

[23]    Davenant, 1832/2006:24.

[24]    Davenant, 1832/2006:79.

[25]  Davenant, 1832/2006:169.

[26]  See Appendix One.

[27]    http://www.the-highway.com/Jh3.16_Owen.html.  Accessed 31^st January, 2013.

[28]    Owen,  http://www.the-highway.com/Jh3.16_Owen.html.  Accessed 31^st January, 2013.

[29]    Hall, http://www.midamerica.edu/resources/journal/10/hall.pdf. .  Accessed 31^st January, 2013.

[30]    Calvin, Sermons on Christ’s Passion, p.48.  Add to this, Calvin’s universalistic terms: the world’s

         Redeemer (21, 37, 39, 42, 55, 63, 93, 95, 126, 138, 242, ), the human race, all men, mankind (55,  
         74, 89, 108, 125, 151, 155f, 196, 222, 237, 265, 270), sins of the world (87, 123, 284), salvation of
          the world (125, 133, 153,).

[31]    Calvin, comment on Jn.3:16.

[32]    Selection #133.

[33]    Selection #149.

[34]    Selection #158.

[35]    Selection #162, 198.

[36]    Selection #213.

[37]    Selection #215.

[38]    Selection #218, 272, 310.