The Unbeliever's Irony

Have you ever wondered why it is that those 'church Christians' - as opposed to true Christians - who hate the Gospel, hate all preaching about or of the Cross and the blood, hate to hear about the death of Christ for their sin, without fail attend the Lord's Supper regularly? And what is the Lord's Supper about?  It is about Christ's death on the Cross for the sins of the world.  It uses the physical elements of bread broken and wine poured out to preach the death of the Saviour for the world, yet they hate the Cross.

I think the answer is that many within nominal churches, that is, churches that do not know or preach the everlasting Gospel, are so steeped in romish sacramentalism and sacerdotalism that it matters little to them what the sacrament means and implies so long as they 'take' it.  They do not believe that Christ's death and resurrection trusted in personally will save them and take them to heaven, but they do believe that the sheer mechanical taking of the Supper does.  That is unadulterated romanism.

Nor does it seem to dawn on such deluded church members that unless and until they enjoy communion (fellowship) with Christ on a daily basis rules out their having communion with Him at the table.  This romanising of the Christian faith by the churches must be acknowledged and repented of immediately, if times of refreshing are to come from the presence of the Lord.

Any comments?

New LLoyd-Jones Book on Diesel Ebook Store.

My new book on Dr D Martyn Lloyd-Jones is now available on Diesel Ebook Store and may be accessed there.

Please visit this site and have a look.  Did you know that you could earn yourself a small amount of money by writing a review of this book?  It is small but after a few reviews, you will then be able to buy yourself a book.

MARRIAGE UNDER ATTACK - OUR NATION UNDER JUDGEMENT

Don't play politics with marriage

Marriage is unique Throughout history and in virtually all human societies marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman. Marriage reflects the complementary natures of men and women. Although death and divorce may prevent it, the evidence shows that children do best with a married mother and a father.

No need to redefine Civil partnerships already provide all the legal benefits of marriage so there's no need to redefine marriage. It's not discriminatory to support traditional marriage. Same-sex couples may choose to have a civil partnership but no one has the right to redefine marriage for the rest of us.

Profound consequences If marriage is redefined, those who believe in traditional marriage will be sidelined. People's careers could be harmed, couples seeking to adopt or foster could be excluded, and schools would inevitably have to teach the new definition to children. If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?

Speak up People should not feel pressurised to go along with same-sex marriage just because of political correctness. They should be free to express their views. The Government will be launching a public consultation on proposals to redefine marriage. This will provide an opportunity for members of the public to make their views known.

SIGN PETITION HERE Peter Saunders: TEN  REASONS  FOR  REJECTING  HOMOSEXUAL  ‘MARRIAGE’. 1. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman Throughout history in virtually all cultures and faiths throughout the world, marriage has been held to be the union of one man and one woman. Marriage existed thousands of years before our nation began and has been recognised in our laws as the ‘voluntary union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others for life’ (Hyde v Hyde 1866). The UN Declaration of Human Rights (article 16) recognises that the family, headed by one man and one woman, ‘is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’. It is not up to governments to redefine marriage – but simply to recognise it for what it is, and to promote and protect it as a unique institution. 2.Same sex couples already have civil partnerships Virtually all the legal rights of marriage are already available to same sex couples through civil partnerships so there is no need to redefine marriage to include them. The President of the Family Division has even described civil partnerships as conferring ‘the benefits of marriage in all but name’. Such a move would also inevitably lead to calls to open civil partnerships to opposite sex couples on the basis of ‘equality’. But marriage and civil partnerships have been designed for two very different types of relationship and should be kept distinct. It is not and should not be ‘one size fits all’. 3.Redefining marriage without consultation is undemocratic None of the political leaders who are supporting the legalisation of same sex marriage announced it as a priority in their election manifestos. There is already a huge amount of opposition to the move and pressing ahead with legalisation will lead to considerable dissension and division. Legalising same sex marriage to appease a small minority is wrong and it should not be foisted on the British people without proper consultation about whether rather than how it should be done. 4.Equality does not mean uniformity In a free democratic society we accept that many human activities are not open to everybody. Not everyone is allowed to drink alcohol, drive a car, buy property, cast a vote, own a firearm, attend university, visit Buckingham Palace or participate in a 100m women’s Olympic event. This does not mean that those who are not eligible for these activities are in any way denigrated or demeaned, but just that there are eligibility criteria. Same sex couples do not fulfil the eligibility criteria for marriage, which should be reserved for the voluntary union of one man and one woman for life. 5.Protecting traditional marriage safeguards children and society Stable marriages and families headed by a mother and a father are the bedrock of society and the state has a duty to protect the uniqueness of these key institutions. Though death and divorce may prevent it, children do best when raised by a married mother and father. Whilst single parents or same sex couples may do a good job in raising children, social policy has to be concerned with what is normally the case, and children have a right if at all possible to have a married mother and a father involved in their upbringing. In general the evidence shows that marriage provides a stability for adults and children which is hard to beat in terms of outcomes. There is considerable evidence to show that marriage leads to better family relationships, less economic dependence, better physical health and longevity, improved mental health and emotional well-being and reduced crime and domestic violence. By contrast sexual freedom and relationship breakdown cost Britain £100 billion annually and other models of the family have not been shown to have the same stability as traditional marriage. Same sex marriage, in comparison with marriage, is an unproven and experimental social model. 6.Marriage is a unique biologically complimentary relationship Marriage is the only legal union which can naturally lead to children. It takes both a man and a woman to produce a baby. The fact that there is a natural link between sexual intimacy and procreation is what makes marriage distinctive and different. Redefining marriage will undermine this distinctness and difference and risks normalising the technological instrumentalisation of reproduction and increasing the number of families where there is confusion of biological, social and family identity. 7.Redefining marriage will be complex and expensive Redefining marriage could cost £billions and involve amending hundreds of pieces of government legislation. Introducing same sex marriage is a legal can of worms which cannot be achieved without changing the common and legal definition of the word marriage and other words which define it. (eg. ‘husband and wife’, ‘consummation’ and ‘adultery’). These changes will inevitably change the definition and nature of marriage for opposite sex couples by trying to accommodate these two very different kinds of relationship under one legal umbrella. According to an assessment done for gay rights group Stonewall by a former civil servant, the cost of implementing one favoured option would be around £5 billion. This figure relates to a theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships, with knock-on implications to their entitlement to pension and tax benefits. This is simply not a priority for government at a time of economic recession as it will confer no new rights. 8.Schools will be forced to teach about the new definition of marriage Under existing education law schools will be required to teach children that marriage can be between a man and a woman, between two men or between two women. This will confuse children whose parents may wish to teach them according to their own values and worldview. Those parents who object could be undermined in their children’s eyes, stigmatised as homophobics and bigots and prevented from full involvement in schools. 9.Redefining marriage will not stop with same sex marriage In Mexico same sex marriage was followed by two year fixed term marriage. In Canada legalising same sex marriage has led to supporters of polygamy demanding in the courts for their unions to be recognised. If the legal definition is changed to accommodate same sex couples other minority groups with a vested interest (eg. Muslims, Mormons, Bisexuals and Polyamorists) will have a much stronger case to argue for the legalisation of polygamy and group marriages. The best defence against this is to keep the legal definition of marriage unique and distinct – ‘one man, one woman, for life’. 10.Redefining marriage will lead to faith-based discrimination We have already seen a rising tide of discrimination against people who support traditional marriage as a result of the legalisation of civil partnerships coupled with new equality legislation. If same sex marriage is legalised, faith-based employers who provide special health benefits to married employees would be required by law to extend those benefits to same-sex ‘spouses’. They would also face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action - no matter how modest - against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil ‘marriage’ with a member of the same sex. Faith-based adoption and fostering services that place children exclusively with married couples would be required by law to place children with persons of the same sex who are civilly ‘married’. Marriage counsellors from faith backgrounds would be denied their professional accreditation for refusing to provide counselling in support of same-sex ‘married’ relationships. All these moves would place faith groups in the invidious position of being forced to act against their consciences or face marginalisation, exclusion and litigation and would further fuel social fragmentation, sectarianism, antagonism and civil unrest. “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder” Mark 10:9.

Book Available From Major Book Seller.

Diesel eBook Store has now listed my book, Calvin and Courage - Under the Cross, for sale.  Please visit this website to check it out.

This book contains an address the author gave at a theological conference in NORFOLK in 2009, to commemorate the birth of the Genevan reformer, John Calvin (1509 - 1564).

CONFESSING CHRIST

If I profess with the loudest voice and clearest exposition every portion of the Word of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Him. Where the battle rages there the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle front besides, is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at that point.

MARTIN LUTHER

(1483-1546)

There can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the professing church in our country (UK) has failed lamentably to truly confess Christ and the Gospel.  She is deafeningly silent on the matter of gay marriages, sodomy, the threat from Islam, and a host of other issues.  Luther is right: the church today has hidden her light under a bucket, and the world is going to hell as fast as its feet can carry it.

John Calvin on the Atonement

The teaching of John Calvin on the atonement has given rise to considerable controversy on the nature and extent of the atonement. Works by such eminent scholars as A. C. Clifford, B. G. Armstrong, Paul van Buren, R. T. Kendal, Isaac Watts, Philip Doddridge, John Newton, E. Calamy, J. Bellamy, J. Edwards, Thomas Chalmers, Ralph Wardlow, J, Bunyan, and J. C. Ryle; also Luther, Melanchthon, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmore, Coverdale, and Calvin himself, plus some Westminster divines such as Richard Baxter, on the one side of the debate, and Jonathan Rainbow, Jim Packer, Paul Helm, Roger Nicole, Carl Bangs, plus a significant number of the Westminster divines, to name but a few are on the other side of the controversy.

Claims and counter-claims have been made, each asserting that he has understood the mind of Calvin, and faithfully represents it.

But given the discrepancy between these views, each side can hardly be correct.  The interesting thing is that those who would describe themselves as “authentic Calvinists,” represented by the scholars mentioned in the first section of the paragraph above, have succeeded in drawing their theological views directly from Calvin’s writings, while those in the other school – the high orthodox, or scholastic, theologians, of whom the puritan Dr John Owen is a fine representative - tend to draw heavily on medieval Aristotelian philosophy to help them argue their case, though they might deny this.  

The remainder of this article is now available on Smashwords.com Go to smashwords.com and search for Hazlett Lynch.  You will also see on that site other interesting information products, some of which are free for you to take.

But it is important that you go to original sources for you information on any man, and not to what other writers think they wrote.  Go right to the horse's mouth, as we say, and discover exactly what Calvin believed on this critically important matter of the atonement.

Irish History From A Christian Perspective

This is probably the first attempt to write a history of Ireland from a theological perspective, and I encourage you to get the first part of this ongoing study.  Please visit this link for further information and see how this will work from the introductory chapter.

The upcoming chapters will follow this plan and it will be very exciting to see just what the impact of this approach will be.  It will certainly put Irish History into a perspective that is not normal for history writing.

Political Forgiveness For An Apology From Terrorists

To find out how theology can be applied to concrete situations, please visit this website for further information.

This study in reconciliation sets out the arguments for and against granting amnesty for apology for those who have committed some of the worst crimes in human history. It analyses it from a victim's perspective. Checked by the teaching of Scripture, this book will set you thinking about issues where wrong has been done, and what the biblical and Christian way forward is for concerned.

This current proposal smacks of amnesty for truth, which is in itself an immoral proposal. 

Reconciliation and Victims of Terrorism

If you are interested in finding out more about a subject of international importance, may I refer you to this website.

The Book seeks to analyse and address current reconciliation thinking in war-torn Northern Ireland by subjecting it to the teaching of the Bible. False reconciliation, argues Dr Lynch, is very dangerous because it creates a false sense of security. Myths around current reconciliation thinking and practice are exposed and answered, and an understanding of true and lasting reconciliation proposed.