Creeds and Confessions

What, then, of creeds and confessions? As to form, they bind only those who voluntarily profess or subscribe them. As to content, “they bind only so far as they affirm what the Bible teaches, and because the Bible does so teach.”[1] Where they depart in any respect from Scripture, we must follow Scripture and suspend our allegiance to that subordinate standard or to that ‘errant’ section within it. In other words, we follow a man or a confessional document only insofar as they unambiguously follow Christ speaking in the Scriptures. DML-J encouraged Christians to do their own thinking and to work things out for themselves. “We must not swallow automatically everything we read in books, even from the greatest men. We must examine everything.”[2]

This raises then interesting point that has bedevilled many churches over the centuries and that it its mere possession of theologically orthodox confessional statements. While the Doctor referred to these as mere “paper confessions” which found no reflection in what the churches were actually preaching, he had little time for them. Dr Harry Uprichard, a staunch Westminster Confession theologian, wrote, “Mere possession of a confessional basis does not ensure that a Christian body is characterised by the preaching of the Word. It must actively preach the same.”[3] If the Gospel is not being preached in churches where confessional correctness is demanded, then possession of such a confession becomes a liability and a hindrance to true Gospel preaching. It becomes purely academic whether or not the confession is biblical. Macleod who is also an avid Westminster theologian, contends that “it is not the official teaching of any given church that determines its soundness or otherwise, but its actual preaching.”[4] Churches would be better served if they altered their confessions to reflect what is actually being preached in their churches instead of maintaining their confessions and pretending that all its ministers preach according to its dogmas. Machen is right on the money here when he describes such inexcusable anomalies in terms of dishonesty.

According to Reformed theologian, Prof. John M. Frame, churches ought to be free to alter their confessions, and allow elders, whether teaching or ruling, to dissent from their confession of faith within some limits. This safeguards the position of supremacy for Scripture, and removes the possibility of Confessions becoming, not merely on a par with Scripture, but in actual practice, superior to Scripture in authority.  He writes

Confessions are not Scripture, and they should not be treated as infallible or as ultimately normative. Indeed, I believe it is important that in a church fellowship it be possible to revise the creeds, and for that purpose, it must also be possible for members and officers to dissent from the creed within some limits. Otherwise, the creed will, practically speaking, be elevated to a position of authority equivalent to Scripture. A “strict” view of subscription in which ministers are never permitted to teach contrary to any detail of the creed might be seen as a way to protect the orthodoxy of the church. However, in my view, such a view is actually subversive of orthodoxy, because it is subversive of biblical authority and sufficiency. Under such a form of subscription, Scripture is not given the freedom to reform the church according to God’s will.[5]

Frame’s position is reasonable and most commendable, and while it possesses the potential to loosen the hold that confessions have on its office-holders, it also frees those office-holders to demonstrate that Scripture is de facto the supreme standard of the church and the basis of their faith. It is the Christian duty of everyone who subscribes such confessions to do so in the knowledge that where they differ from Scripture in any regard, they must be free to go with Scripture, and not the creedal standard of the church, without ecclesiastical penalty being imposed. It is very easy to agree with Frame’s position in theory but then to invalidate it by saying that the confession of any particular church is so correct that it does not need to be altered. If confessions can be altered to bring them into line with the clear statements of Scripture, especially where the Gospel is concerned, then they ought to be.

DML-J held a similar position to that articulated by Frame. The Presbyterian Church in Wales, into whose ministry he was ordained in 1927, altered its 1823 Confession of Faith in 1875 to include the universal aspect in the Atonement. Then in 1933, the Welsh Presbyterian church adopted a looser attitude to its own Confession of Faith, yet DML-J, who was minister in Sandfields at that time, showed no concern whatever about this. Despite the fact that the Welsh Presbyterian church did this for purely liberal reasons, the Doctor found it liberating and also gave him the freedom to follow where Scripture leads. His evangelistic sermons in Sandfields demonstrate that he too enjoyed a looser adherence to his church’s confessional standards that energised his Gospel preaching, and meant that he was preaching sermons that were in keeping with those confessional standards.

DML-J believed that if a church claims to be ‘Reformed,’ it must demonstrate the authenticity of that claim by continually reforming its affairs,[6] its practice and, where necessary, its confessional standards,[7] according to Scripture. 

The Church is always to be under the Word, ... You must not assume that because the Church started correctly she must continue so. She did not do so in New Testament times; she has not done so since.[8]

Baptist professor of New Testament, Ralph P. Martin, makes a similar point to Frame when he says,

Nevertheless, our confessions are not inherently sacrosanct or beyond revision and improvement; and, of course, church history did not stop in the seventeenth century. We are faced with errors today which those who drew up the great confessions were not faced with and which they did not explicitly address in the confessions, but it is a task to be undertaken with extreme caution. ...[9]

Martin went on to say that “a confession is a useful means for the public affirmation and defence of truth...(it) serves as a public standard of fellowship and discipline...(and it) serves as a concise standard by which to evaluate ministers of the Word.”

---

[1]   Hodge?????

[2]   DML-J, Puritans, 1987:x.

[3]   Uprichard, H. in Evangel, Vol.3:4, 1985:2.

[4]   Macleod, D. in Evangel, Vol.4:1, 1986:11.

[5]   http://www.frame-poythress.org/introduction-to-the-Reformed-faith/  Accessed

       18/05/2013.

[6]    Latin: Ecclesia semper reformanda est.

[7]    http://www.frame-poythress.org/introduction-to-the-Reformed-faith/  Accessed 18/05/2013.

[8]    Evangelical?, 1992:30.

[9]    Martin in Waldron, 1989:9-23.

CONFLICT IN THE CHURCH OF CHRIST - THE CHRISTMAS MESSAGE

The church of Jesus Christ is presented in Scripture as God's new society in the world. She is described as that body of people who form a new humanity, distinct from the old humanity, yet having its origin in it. The Christian Church is the ’ecclesia,’ the 'called-out ones'; they are those who have been separated from the world, that is, from life

organised apart from any consideration of God or His Word of truth, to be a peculiar people chosen by the Sovereign God. As such,these 'called-out' people are different from those who have not been ’called-out’ from the world. They have a different outlook in life, observe different principles, serve a different Master, and are going to a different destiny. They are the people of God, the elect.

Now since it is impossible, in this life,to detect exactly who the elect of God are, our Lord teaches us that it is "by their fruits" that they are to be known,(Mt.7:16,20). What they are on the inside will be revealed by what they do outwardly. It may take a long time, even a life-time, for this to appear, but appear it assuredly will. But until that time comes, it is almost impossible to tell among those who make a public  profession of faith just who are the true children of God, and who are not. So great care has to be taken so that mistaken judgments are not made before the time, (1 Cor.4:5a; cf.Mt.13:30a).

It seems to be here that the problem of conflict occurs. There are those who claim to be Christians, who believe and say the right things, go to the right places and meetings, and associate with the right people, but who may not be Christians at all. They have all the appearances of being true believers, but alas they are from a different family altogether. And within the church of Christ, these people are accepted as members on a profession of faith. In the church, the wheat and the weeds grow and develop together until harvest, (Mt.13:25); within her bounds, the children of the flesh and those of the Spirit co-habitate, (Gal.4:22,23,29,30).

Further, there is the fact that in the world, there are those who are not God's people just as there are those who are. They share the same planet together, work in the same places, travel on the same roads, live on the same streets, attend the same churches, and do so together. These two distinct groups of people belong to different kingdoms whose rulers are utterly opposed to each other. Therefore the respective members of these kingdoms are automatically involved in a spiritual battle, or conflict, with those who serve the other master. There is a given-ness about this state of affairs that cannot be gainsaid. This is the true situation in which the Christian believer finds himself. God and Satan are at war; and their respective followers are called into and are actively engaged in the battle as well.

Given this scenario, it is but inevitable, though surprising, that conflict should arise within the body of Christ on earth. Jesus said, "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon," (Mt.6:24). The sheer impossibility of this ever happening is denied categorically by our Lord. Any man can but serve one master at any one time. The Christian Church is set apart for the exclusive service of the Living God; but when there are those within the church who even hold positions of authority and leadership over God's people, yet who are in the service of another master, conflict will inevitably arise.

Conflict, then, within the church as visible must be recognised as normal, and not in anyway abnormal or strange. There should be great concern in the hearts of all true believers when the church is at peace with God's enemy. Christians should engage in deep and thorough examination of their hearts when they can get on well with those who hate their Saviour, and blaspheme His holy name. That is not to say that Christians ought to go out looking for trouble and conflict, for they ought to live at peace with all men, as much as it depends upon them, (Rom.12:18).

However, that being said, Christians often compromise their own testimony when they refuse to take their stand for Christ, when He is being ridiculed. And in so doing, they display a disregard for their Lord's honour in the world that is nothing short of disgraceful.

In trying to serve two mutually exclusive masters, they end up serving only the one, Satan. When a survey of the teaching of the entire Old and New Testaments is carried out, it will be observed that the first record of conflict is found in Gen.3, where the serpent confronts the woman, Eve, and makes suggestions to her of the harshness of God in not allowing her and her husband free scope in the Garden of Eden, and then,having gained her ear, proceeds to deny outright the doctrine of divine judgement which was pronounced by God upon Adam in the event of his disobeying His Word. This having been done, enmity was established between God and humankind, Gen.3:8, 13,16, and between God and the devil, Gen.3:14, 15. This conflict between heaven and earth had its ramifications between men, for in Gen.4:1,8, the account of the murder of Abel by his brother Cain is given in a simple,unadorned and factual manner. Separation of man from God resulted in separation between people in the one family, a separation that was evidenced in death, the basic meaning of which is 'separation, not termination.' The remainder of the Old Testament is full of the same sin which manifested itself in various ways.

When the New Testament is studied, the motif of conflict introduces the Gospel record. When the Christ-child's birth is announced by the angels of God, the enmity of men's heart was brought out in a terrible manner, with the decision of the government to kill all baby boys two years old and younger to ensure that the rival King to Herod might also be destroyed, Mt.2:1 -18. The entrance of the Messiah into the world which He came to redeem was bathed in conflict that issued in blood.

The earthly ministry of the Lord exhibits the same conflict principle. First with the religious leaders of His day, then with the political leaders, Jesus Christ found Himself regularly in confrontational situations which sought to compromise Him in some way or other. Traps were laid for Him by the lawyers, by Pharisees, by Sadducees, and by Scribes. Often the trouble arose because of the very presence of Jesus with them; what He said and did stirred up an unbelievable level of opposition against Him. No legitimate reason can be given to justify such opposition against the Son of God. It could not be said that His attitude towards those with whom He differed was sinful. Nor could it be argued that He set out deliberately to get people's backs up against Him and His cause and kingdom. Nor could it be alleged that He treated people badly, cared nothing for their feelings, forgot that they were people made in God's image, or simply tried to discourage them for the sheer sake of it. Who and what He was, was sufficient to guarantee a hostile reception from those who saw Him as a threat to their lives and religion. The pure and sinless Son of God coming into a wicked world that had already proved the depth of it's opposition to any intrusion into its affairs by the mal-treatment and killing of God's servants the prophets, was designed to provoke a strong uprising in men's hearts. And it did just that! When perfect holiness meets guilty sinfulness, something must give; and it won't be God's perfect holiness!

Throughout His earthly ministry, every step that God's Son took was contested strongly both by His enemies and by those called to be His disciples. Even they did not understand as they should the reason for His coming into the world. They imagined that He too would follow the ways of the world in order to establish His Kingdom in the world; that He too would attract followers by doing sensational dramatics, like being a 'temple-jumper,' Mt.4:5-7. But His Kingdom was not of this world, nor were His methods of establishing it. This lesson had to be learnt by His closest followers.

The death of the Messiah by crucifixion was the epitome of the wickedness of the human heart. At Calvary, the iniquity came to the fore for all to see. What men did to God's innocent Son was and is inexcusable, and is punishable by eternal death. Yet it was in precisely this way that God would redeem His people, and bring them into fellowship with Himself by reconciling them to God; for ”without the shedding of blood” there could be no forgiveness of sin for anyone. Christ was tortured, He suffered, and eventually died on that Roman gibbet.

Yet that was not the end of the matter, for on the third day, God wrought the greatest miracle that could ever be wrought when He raised His Son from death. The risen Christ appeared to the Eleven, to the wider group of followers, and last of all to Saul on the Damascus road, (1 Cor.15:1-8).

The fact of the resurrection of Christ, attested by many reliable witnesses, became a focal point in the kerugma of the early church. On occasions, the apostles were forbidden to preach in the Name of the risen Christ. Their message was a ridiculous one in the extreme; yet it was the crowning event of God's mighty acts. This event provided the proof that God had accepted the sacrifice that Christ made on the Cross for sin, thus opening up the way for the salvation or the world. When the early church commenced preaching this message, again conflict was provoked, and the disciples and apostles bore the brunt of it. The church was persecuted, scattered far and wide, and left as dead. But the believers of the Diaspora did not cease to be Christians when this happened, but saw this as God's mysterious way of sending out His people with the message of the Gospel that would enlighten men's natural darkness. One would have imagined that such a message would be welcome to men in sin, but such was not the case. Persecution intensified against the infant church, and this went on for many centuries until the life of the church was almost snuffed out.

Conflict commenced in time at a very early stage of man's existence in this world, and will continue unabated throughout history to the end of time, and this too will be marked by conflict. The forces of light and darkness will confront each other at the end, but the outcome will be in no more doubt then than it ever was during the years of history. God's truth, Kingdom, cause, and people will be vindicated publicly, and God's great eternal purpose which He wrought out in time through His despised servants, against all odds, will be seen for the glorious purpose that it is.

THE LIFE OF CHRIST AND CONFLICT.

It is often wrongly assumed that conflict is aroused when someone says or does something that irritates another. Either he is abrupt or otherwise nasty, or he behaves in a particularly unacceptable manner. In each case, the other person is offended, and conflict is provoked. This is not true in principle, however. In practice, it often is the case, given the fallenness of human nature. Yet, care must be taken when applying this principle to the life of our Lord Jesus Christ.

When the accounts of the incarnation of Jesus Christ are examined in Matthew, Luke and John, a recurring trend may be discerned. At the time of His birth in Bethlehem of Judea, a tremendous uproar was created in neighbouring Jerusalem when King Herod heard of the arrival of a new "King". The royal Baby had just been born, had neither said nor done anything, yet His very presence in the nation caused intense opposition against Him. Herod knew that a new King being born in his jurisdiction heralded the end of his own sinful reign over the Jews. This amounted to nothing less than a massive threat to his throne and to his personal sovereignty. His security had now been undermined and his position of leadership on the verge of toppling. The king's wicked lifestyle was challenged by the arrival this Child's presence in Bethlehem. And what made matters worse was the fact that King Herod had not even known of the birth, nor that such a birth was to have taken place! The very secrecy of the birth of God's Son threw him into mental turmoil and anguish. What was happening? Matthew makes it abundantly clear that Herod's nerves were seriously frayed,(2:13).

But not only was Herod, and no doubt his political advisers, greatly alarmed at the news of the Saviour's birth, so also was all Jerusalem,(v.3). The entire city was thrown into turmoil at the news. The inhabitants of Jerusalem was in the main Jewish, and of all people they ought to have rejoiced at the word of the Messiah's birth. But they did not! They too were disturbed, very upset, troubled. The verb, ϵταραχθη, is aorist, and is in the passive voice, indicating that this was something that had happened to them. The root verb, ταρασσω, is a Homeric term, means that "to shake something out of inertia and throw it into confusion, i.e, to disturb, to upset, to confound, to agitate.[1] The Old Testament (LXX) on the whole uses this word in the usual Greek sense. The word is used in the New Testament of troubling the waters, (Jn.5:4,7), and in the passive sense, is always used negatively, connoting emotional disturbance: to become terrified, afraid, overawed. The Synoptics use the infinitive, ταρασσομαι, only five times, always with this meaning, and that two of the five are found in the nativity narratives, (Mt.2:3; 14:26; Mk.6:50; Lk.1:12; 24:38).In every case the reference is to an emotional shock which is brought about not by human action, but by the action of God. This is important, because the birth of the Messiah was nothing if not divine action, divine intervention. Herod's heart, and the heart's of the people of Jerusalem experienced the reality of internal commotion when God became flesh in the Person of His Son. And when a person is churned up inside, there arises a bitterness that issues in the desire for revenge, leading in turn in the lust for murder; thus conflict is born.

In Herod's case, the conflict came about because his own sinfulness was being exposed by the presence of God's holy Son. His was primarily an inner conflict. He was not at peace with himself, therefore he could not be at peace with others, especially rivals. The absence of inner peace and the disunity of heart that he experienced are explicable only in terms of his being a rebel against Almighty God. His own personal history, coupled as it necessarily was with that of his forebears, did not make for pleasant thinking. His guilt stared him in the face. Sin was alive and well in Herod's life.

Here we can draw the conclusion that our Lord did not have to say or do anything to have a far–reaching effect upon those around him. His presence alone stirred up conflict. He was different to those around him, and this difference exerted its own influence upon their thinking. His presence in Bethlehem was a mighty challenge to all who lived there, and to everything they did. Most of all, perhaps, it launched the greatest challenge to the religion which they had embraced, or had not embraced as the case may be. The Jewish religion spoke of the coming of the Messiah, God's Anointed One, to Bethlehem in Judea. That entire religious system was a pointer to its fulfilment in the Person of the promised Messiah. Consequently, the Jews ought to have been awaiting the Messiah, and to have expected His arrival amongst them at any time. But alas, they themselves did not know the time of His appearing, nor receive Him when He did in fact come, Jn.1:11,12. He was rejected by His own people. And where there is rejection of God's Son and Gospel, there necessarily will be conflict.

---

[1]   NIDNTT, Ed. Colin Brown, Exeter, 1978, Vol.3, p.709. The noun, ταραχος, connotes agitation, confusion, tumult.

Does the Church Need Confessions and Creeds?

Why does the church need confessions and creeds? Isn’t the Scripture sufficient on its own? Is there a deficiency in the Scriptures that necessitates them being supplemented by man-made confessions?

And if the church needs confessions, etc, ought these to be clearly "founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God"? One thing is clear: confessions that exhibit a partisan orientation cannot be definition be "founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God." One good criterion on which to assess any confession of faith is to look at what it teaches regarding the very heart of the Christian Gospel – the Atonement. If God’s provision for the salvation of mankind is denied, either explicitly or implicitly, then it is not true to God’s revealed will in Scripture. Sadly, the Westminster Confession of Faith and its offspring fall into this category, whereas the Three Forms of Unity, The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt, do not. Therefore these are to be preferred as confessions of one’s belief and of the belief of the churches to those documents that deny Christ’s all-sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the world.[1] If a confession is in error here, then the teaching of its (usual) first chapter On Scripture has been undermined. What follows such an opening chapter must be demonstrably true to its statements, and any questionable doctrines must either be removed from the confession or emended in line with Scripture.

---

[1]   Jn.1:29; 3:16; 1 Jn.2:2.

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

Do Theological Seminaries and Colleges Destroy Preaching?

Dr Henry Drummond thinks that seminaries are doing an inadequate job in the training of preachers because, firstly, teachers have so given themselves to the historico-critical method that it has suddenly undermined the authority of the Word of God. Preachers now do not have confidence in the Scriptures, therefore they do not believe that the unfolding of the Word of God is where the power of preaching really is. Secondly, the homiletical departments of seminaries and colleges have generally failed to emphasise expository preaching. Since Fosdick, life-situation preaching has been emphasised. The climate in many congregations today is such that it dictates a low priority of preaching, where preaching is not seen as significant in ministry at all. So often, Christians prefer to sit in judgment on the preaching, and even say such things as this: "if a man cannot say what he has to say in15-20 minutes, he shouldn't be a preacher." Today, preaching must be ultra-brief and go over us and hit our neighbour. This anti-preaching climate has a destructive effect on the preacher himself, for his very call is under question, his raison d’tre is challenged. And if such a climate tends to destroy the preacher, then the congregation has little or no chance of surviving. What many congregations want today is, not a preacher of the Word of God, but an office manager, (Ravenhill).

Preaching - The Major Issue In Ministry

Preaching must be THE issue for the minister. 

"The whole basis of our spiritual life and our church life is that we respond to what God has done. The essence of preaching is the proclamation of what God has done; therefore if we are to have experience with God, both individually and corporately, it is going to be the basis of responding to the knowledge of what God has done, which in one form or another, must come from proclamation. Preaching is, therefore, fundamental in the church life and therefore should have a high priority in the life of the pastor," Dr S. Briscoe. 

All of the spiritual life is simply a response to God, who has revealed Himself through His Word and through His messenger, the preacher.

Therefore proclamation is of vital importance and an essential ingredient in the worship of God. Praising God and preaching His Word are essential to true worship. Through God-owned preaching, sinners and saints alike meet with the living God. In the 

Word, believer's experience fellowship with their Lord and with each other. Take away the proclaimed Word, and little else remains. The Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God states,

Preaching of the Word, being the power of God unto salvation, and one of the greatest and most excellent works belonging to the ministry of the gospel, should be so performed, that the workman need not be ashamed, but may save himself, and those that hear him.

In the Presbyterian Church, the sermon is the climax of our church's worship services. 

Institutional Maintenance

The 'firm's men' are not interested in truth or in the Gospel; all they are interested in is "institutional maintenance," to use the unforgettable term used by Dr Jonathan Lamb at a convention in July 2013 in Northern Ireland. This is all they know and this is all they do. And anyone who stands in the way of "institutional maintenance," is to be removed by whatever means, moral or otherwise.

Do such men care about preaching the Gospel with conviction and passion? Do they want to see sinners saved and brought into the Kingdom of God? No. Do they want to see their church live on for many years? Of course they do. Do they want anything else? Yes. They want to see the money flowing in, for it is from the hard-earned money of church members that they hold their well-paid jobs. What else do they want? They want the removal of all those, whoever they might be, from the church because they might make their church an endangered species.

But there whole aim to "institutional maintenance." How pathetic! Why maintain an institution that is no longer (to use civil service speak) "fit for purpose"? If the churches today are not preaching the everlasting Gospel of redeeming grace, they are surplus to requirements. They are promoting the eternal damnation of those who sit and listen to them speaking utter irrelevancies. God is offended by their very existence. Remember what He said to and about Israel in Amos' day? “I hate, I despise your feast days, And I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings." (Amos 5:21, 22). That is serious talk, is it not? For the Almighty God to utter such damning words is fearful.

Yet for the institutional maintainers, this is what the LORD is saying. May He have mercy on us for our unfaithfulness to Him.

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.

"Follow No Divisive Course"

To the ordinary person, this sounds like very good counsel. Within Christian circles, we are to "maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace," (Eph.4:3). We are to pursue "peace with all men,...." (Heb.12:14). The writers of these wise words knew full well that it is simply not possible to be in good terms with everyone because all do not hold to the historic Christian faith. So their own experiences and the experiences of fellow apostles and disciples of the Lord demonstrate that these words are not to be taken at their face value.

But some churches do just that! They counsel their ministers not to follow any divisive course. Now you know what that means in practice. They are never to take a decision that would tend to cause disharmony within the congregation even though the congregation is made up of the converted and the unconverted. They are to keep in with the unconverted members of the church, and do or say nothing that would cause them to be offended. As one former theological college principal told a young colleague, "Say what the people want you to say and do what they want you to do." This is what even the professedly purest reformed churches are doing in practice, the most theologically orthodox, the separatist churches.

When it comes to sacramental discipline, they are bound to accept as Christian members those covenant children and young people who are requesting church membership, provided their behaviour does not undermine their profession. The policy seems to be that if a potential church member's behaviour does not contradict their profession, the church presumes that they are regenerate, so admits them to full church membership. If it creates a mist on a mirror that is placed under its nostrils, and its parents are already members of the church, then baptise it - just to keep the peace. Whatever you do, do not ask about whether or not they are born again, or saved, or converted to Christ. Why? Because that is liable to cause division in the congregation.

But perhaps the worst manifestation of this is in the case where the Gospel is not preached with anything resembling clarity by the minister. Problems arise when the minister preaches a clear biblical Gospel. But problems ought to arise where the minister simply does not preach the Gospel clearly and biblically and to the consciences of the members. In fact, problems ought to be caused in any church that does not preach the Gospel. Elders have an awesome responsibility to God and to those who worship in the same church to ensure that the Gospel is preached with power and conviction, and that hearers are left in no doubt as to their spiritual condition and what God requires of them if they are to escape the wrath and curse of God due them for sin. How will they answer to the Lord when while on earth they knew the gospel is not being preached in their church, yet they took no decisive action to have this unacceptable situation rectified? Such elders have now come to accept that it is OK for the churches not to preach the everlasting Gospel. And what can be more divisive than a minister who does not preach the Gospel. What can be more spiritually dangerous than a man who claims and is accepted to be a Gospel minister in a 'Gospel' church refusing to preach the Gospel? That is massively divisive. But it is not deemed to be divisive because no one creates a stir about a non-Gospel preaching minister. And the church authorities are content to tolerate such a situation.

And all because their church requires of them not to follow a divisive course. What if Luther, who preached from the Bible as we are supposed to do, had have taken that approach to church life; would the reformation ever have taken place? Had Calvin been content to let things go on as they had done, would the reformation ever been organised? What if the Huguenots and Covenanters and Puritans had taken this advice and 'followed no divisive course,' where would the church have gone?

Ask yourself this: if every church member and elder was like me, how long would the Gospel survive in your church?

Church of Scotland's Moderatoress Laughs at Knox!

The Church of Scotland's Moderatoress, Mrs Lorna Hood, has taken a swipe at John Knox (1514-1572), the man attributed with having brought the Protestant reformation into the Church in Scotland.

Knox was a reformer by nature, and it was his Calvinistic convictions that drove him to seek the reformation of the church in Scotland.  Having studied in Geneva under Calvin (1509-1564), claiming that the academy there was "the most perfect school of Christ since the days of the apostles," he learned from Scripture the Presbyterian form of church government (not to be confused with what is being passed off as Presbyterian church government today), and brought his learning back to his native Scotland, successfully reforming the church of his day. He was quoted as referring to the "the monstrous regiment of women," the reference being directed primarily at Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth I.

Now, the church that he founded has a member of that "monstrous regiment" as Moderatoress, and she dismisses Knox's view on women in leadership with a smile. She knows he would not approve of this ecclesiastical move, but n entering the Assembly Hall she has to pass Knox's statue, and can see nothing but the funny irony of so doing.

Given the clear prohibitive teaching of Scripture on women's ordination to the Christian ministry, every church that blatantly defies biblical teaching and those who accept it have been swallowed up by theological liberalism. And in order to be swallowed up by theological liberalism, one has personally to swallow this religious lie. Sadly, many reformed evangelicals have done just that! And in accepting the rightness and legitimacy of liberalism as one interpretation of the Bible, they have quite easily moved on to embrace the Roman principle that "the church is always right." Luther was strongly advised to "Listen to the Church" just after he nailed his 95 theses to the chapel door at Wittenburg.

Any Christian who "listens to the church" and not to Scripture has already apostacised from the church of Jesus Christ because the has departed from God's Word to the church. Only apostate church's will defy God and ordain women and non-Christians to the Christian ministry. Only apostate churches will accept into church membership for life and on profession of faith without a mechanism to review such professions those whose faith proves to be false. And the wholesale acceptance of members on profession of faith results in non-Christians becoming ministers, and now in Scotland holds the position of Moderatoress. These are the churches that know better than the Lord of the Church who said that women are not to hold such office as elder - it is for men only.

But to get back to Hood and Knox, for anyone to speak well of Knox in the one breath and then to make him the subject of derisory humour is extremely serious. Where are the CoS's evangelicals? Why aren't they screaming from the rooftops at such irreverence? How can they remain within such a denomination, one that accepts the pagan religion called liberalism on a par with biblical truth? As J. Greshem Machen put it, Liberalism and Christianity are two very different religions. Yet in today's spineless and faithless churches, keeping in with the current fashion is more important that maintaining biblical truth. Spurgeon is right: those who marry today's fashion will be tomorrow's widow.

In Ireland. the CoS has a daughter church, namely, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI). Has the Church of Scotland embraced theological liberalism? So has PCI. Therefore, has the CoS preached soul-damning liberalism. So has PCI. Has the CoS embraced same sex marriage? So has PCI - in principle, for she has at least one elder who publicly supports same-sex marriage, yet he still holds his office. Has the CoS persecuted evangelical ministers? So has PCI, and is still doing so.

Yet evangelical church ministers and elders and members are prepared to defend their church to the death against any criticism to the contrary, and continue to support such a religious aberration with their last pound. They hold Knox and his like high, yet they tolerate those who deny Knox's theology and evangelistic zeal. May the Lord show us His mercy.

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.