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.

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. 

Jesus Christ - Sole King and Head of the Church

This is the mantra that is used by reformed evangelicals that is true in theory but false in practice.  Why do I say that?  Because in actual practice Jesus Christ does not hold the top place in the church, but that place is occupied by man-made codes and confessions and religious preferences.

Christians believe that Christ is the sole of Lord of all and that His sole authority is found in His speaking through the Holy Scriptures. Only these are the inspired, or better, expired, Word of the living and true God.  While written by human penmen under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the end product is the mind and heart of God on all matters of faith and practice.

Or is it?  Whilst human compositions have their place and are most helpful, they must never occupy the place of the sole and final authority of God speaking in the Scriptures. 

But that said, human compositions have been elevated to a position higher than Scripture in the thinking and practice of the church.  A man might say what he likes about the Scriptures and the various interpretations that abound, but let him not say a wrong word about the Confession of Faith or other doctrinal standards.  Reformed orthodoxy is not measured by the Confession of Faith alone, but by the only final touchstone of Scripture.  Indeed, there is an argument that says that the Three Forms of Unity (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dort) among the continental reformed church post reformation are a more accurate reflection of the teaching of the Bible as rediscovered at the Reformation.  But these too are subordinate standards held by the church.  Where they conflict in any way with the clear teaching of Scripture, the voice of God speaking in the Scripture must be given prime place in moulding our understanding of the Gospel.

Other human preferences are also used as touchstones of orthodoxy - the exclusive use of the King James Version of the Bible, the exclusive use of Psalms in the worship of God, and whether or not woman cover their heads in church (not to mention other modes of dress).  These human preferences are used to justify separation from other true believers on the most trivial of matters.  Obviously God has a special place in heaven for those who are most orthodox.

I long for the day when Jesus Christ will be, in reality, the sole King and Head of the church whose alone authority is the standard of orthodoxy in His church.  And we must always remember this: It is His Church, not yours or mine.

The fact remains that when anyone puts anything alongside or above Scripture, they have confessed the insufficiency of Scripture alone as an adequate rule of faith and practice.

What is worse, if worse is possible, is that these secondary documents have become the evangelical and reformed equivalent of Roman Catholicism's magisterium.

Now there's something to think about!

Biblical Worship.

For reformed Christians, a principle has been identified that regulates both personal and church life - the Scripture Principle.  Whatever we do, especially in church life, must have a clear warrant in the Word of God.  Her life is to be regulated according to this principle.

Some Christians believe in and practice only the singing of the Psalms in the public and private worship of God, the argument being that this is the hymn-book of the early church, and later Christians have no right to move from this.  Now, if this is the rule for faith and practice, then only what was used in the early Christian Church can now be used in the worship offered by the contemporary church.

To be quite correct, we ought to be singing the Psalms in Hebrew - to ensure that we are singing the true Word of God and not human compositions; the moment we translate the Hebrew Psalms in Scottish metre, we have produced a human composition.

Further, ought we not also to sing the Hebrew Psalms to the original Hebrew tunes?  Surely to sing them to any other tune is to use human compositions in the worship of God, and for some Christians this is wrong.

It is a fact that during the days of the early New Testament church, there was no written New Testament; so what the church used for the instruction of her members was the Hebrew Bible, our Old Testament.  If this is the Scriptures that were used then, who gives the later church the right to add to the Scriptures what we call the New Testament.

OK, Peter equates Paul's letters with the OT Scriptures, but when preaching was done, it was invariably based on the OT.  Is this what we ought to be doing today?

Similarly with church prayers.

Now I love the Psalms and I love worship where Psalms are sung.  I love to conduct worship where the Psalms are used in the praise of God.  I find it rather odd that many churches that claim to be reformed find no place whatever for the singing of Psalms in the worship of God, including within broad evangelical churches.

But are we to believe that only the OT Psalms, which look forward to Christ, are to be used in the worship of God because the words are of divine origin, yet tunes can be used that are clearly not of divine origin and composition?  Can we claim to be biblical in our understanding of worship when we say that psalmodic words are inspired but psalmodic tunes that were used in the OT are not?  Can we maintain this position when we flout our own cherished practice by introducing metre into the Psalms when they were not written originally in metre?  Can English and Scottish and American and Dutch and Genevan tunes ever be a substitute for Hebrew tunes, when it comes to worshipping God acceptably?

These points raise very real questions for me when considering this exceedingly important matter of how to worship God and with what.  If we can allow for human musical compositions in the worship of God, then we have, by that concession, opened the door for human compositions that are regulated by Scripture to be used in the worship of God.

If all our worship is to be governed by the Hebrew Bible, then let it be so.  But even the advocates of this depart from it in so many other ways.  Indeed, their belief system is controlled by human compositions such as confessions and catechisms.

So those churches and Christians that understand Paul's "Psalms, hymns and spiritual songs" as including both the inspired songs of the Psalter and those human compositions that comply with Scripture teaching are closer to the biblical norm for the public and private worship of God than those who adhere to a more restrictive policy.

Life's Ironies.

Why is it that some of the worst rascals in the world have never been in trouble with the law?  How do the most vicious criminals the world knows have no police record?  Strange, but true.

Then some of the best people in the world have gained for themselves a police record, often through no fault of their own.

But in whose company would you rather be - the former or the latter?  And which of them would you want to rule in the church? 

Well, give me the latter any day.  Why?  Because knowing some of the worst rascals around to be utterly destructive of spiritual priorities and holding office within their local churches and denominations, they are very bad company who corrupt everything good.

The churches know that these people have no spiritual life in them that comes from Christ, given their utter opposition to the Gospel.  Yet they protect and retain them in office.  These people have mouths like cesspools, which express hearts like dunghills.  They hate Christ with a passion as measured by the blasphemous way they speak of Him.  They have rejected the Gospel continually and still do.  They are highly involved in their churches, even where an evangelical minister preaches.

But one must ask how it is that unregenerate officer-bearers within local churches can sit under preaching that makes no inroads to their souls?  Do ministers not carry out a spiritual audit of fellow-elders to ascertain their true spiritual standing?  A man may be a Christian and yet unfit to be an elder; but an unconverted man is clearly unfit to be an elder because he does not even satisfy the most basic qualification for eldership - being a Christian.  Therefore he is not fit to be a church member.

Here, a distinction must be made between a man being a church member and his being a Christain.  Church laws only require a man to be a church member, regardless of whether or not he is a Christain.  This view is held in defiance of the New Testament teaching.

For the church to be reformed, ministers must take spiritual issues much more seriously than they do.  It is way beyond time for a radical spiritual audit to be carried out into the spiritual standing of every member and office-bearer, including ministers, within the church.

What is Reformed?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam Promoted by London Mayoral Candidate

This email was received by me today.  It is so relevant to the Norwich situation that I considered it relevant for inclusion in this blog.  After you've read it, you can make up your mind what the issues really are.


Re: update notes from Heartcry Ministries in relation to Mayoral Candidate Ken Livingstone

  

Ken Livingstone - "I will make London a beacon of Islam"

London mayoral candidate Ken Livingstone has vowed to make the capital city a ‘beacon of Islam’.

In a speech last Friday at the North London Central Mosque, also known as the Finsbury Park Mosque, the Labour candidate said that he was determined to “educate the mass of Londoners” about Islam.

“I want to spend the next four years making sure that every non-muslim in London knows and understands [its] words and message. That will help to cement our city as a beacon that demonstrates the meaning of the words of the Prophet”, he said.

Running for mayor for the fourth time, Mr Livingstone spoke to assembled muslims at the controversial mosque and described Mohammed’s words in his last sermon as “an agenda for all humanity.”

The ex-mayor also promised that he would be making life “a bit easier financially” for the muslim population.

North London Central Mosque

North London Central Mosque was once controlled by Abu Hamza, a notorious recruiter for terrorism. He was removed in 2003, although the mosque is still dogged by allegations of links to extremist groups.

The mosque is now controlled by the Muslim Association of Britain, which has previously been linked to the banned terror group Hamas. Azzam Tamimi, who has acted as spokesman for the current leadership, is on record for expressing support for suicide bombings.

One of the current directors of the mosque, Mohammed Sawalha, has supported attacks on Israel’s allies, which includes UK troops. The BBC has described him as a former senior figure of Hamas who is “said to have masterminded much of Hamas’s political and military strategy”. 

Ken Livingstone and Islam

Mr Livingstone has often been linked to fundamentalist Islam.

In 2010, he campaigned against his own party’s candidate in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and backed an independent candidate, Lutfur Rahman, who had been previously fired by the Labour party for links to the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE), an extremist group.

The IFE believes in sharia law, jihad and creating an "Islamic social and political order" in Britain.

In the course of his mayoralty, Mr Livingstone gave hundreds of thousands of pounds to the East London Mosque, which is controlled by the IFE. IFE activists championed him in the 2008 mayoral election. Azad Ali, the IFE's community affairs co-ordinator, helped run “Muslims 4 Ken”, which encouraged large numbers of muslims to vote for Mr Livingstone.

It is alleged by the Daily Telegraph that, on his IFE blog, Mr Ali praised a key mentor of Osama bin Laden, described al-Qaeda as a "myth," and justified the killing of British troops in Iraq.

MY COMMENT:

If this is not a challenge to the Christian church, I do not know what is.  If such a move by a senior politician is not an attempt to destroy, not just our legal system and democracy, but the Christian church in its entirety, I don't know what is.

Mr Livingstone is promoting a false religion that is not only totally opposed to biblical Christianity but it out to destroy it.  As a false religion, it stands condemned by the truth of God's Word.  It reduces our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the level of a man, a prophet, thus denuding Him of His Godhead.  It is a substitute religion that is on the march and, as its name, Islam, implies, is bent on bringing all non-Muslims into submission to Mohammad.  This is a religion that denies the fundamental freedoms that our forefathers won for us at incalculable cost.  The enforcement of Sharia Law will completely remove any freedom to worship and serve the Lord Christ.  Archbishop Rowan Williams recently said that he would have no problem with Sharia Law being implemented in some parts of the UK.  So a senior churchman, who is supposed to promote the Christian faith is in fact promoting its publicly recognised destroyer.  

Has anyone heard of any senior evangelicals or reformed men speaking out against this ploy by Livingstone?  Or have evangelicals again been left without spiritual leadership in face of a religion that is determined to annihilate it?  Are challenges to the biblical Gospel being ignored by today's spineless evangelical and reformed leaders?  It appears so.

No, the Gospel is not treasured in the way it ought to be in today's anaemic church.  Is Islam a true religious faith that has been given by the Lord God Almighty for the salvation of the world?  If it is, why don't liberal church men and members leave their churches and cling to Islam?  If it is not, why the deafening silence of church leaders?  Is the Gospel way of salvation the ONLY way of salvation, or are there others, and is Islam one of them?  Paul doesn't think so (Gal.1:1-10).  Does Islam make its adherents better people, or worse?  Does Islam promote peace and brotherliness?  Is Islam tolerant towards Christians in countries where Islam is in a sizable majority?  Does Islam still murder Christians, or does it love them?

I think we have to face up to these questions now and before it is too late.  Our weak and principle-less government is facilitating the onward march of Islam, despite its loud protestations to want to preserve all that's good in the British way of life.  This CANNOT be done while at the same time allowing Islam free reign in our country.  

One day we will pay a heavy price for what successive governments have knowingly done to our people.  Our Christian heritage is being undermined by dangerously silly legislation and by the tolerance of a foreign religious system that is set about destroying that same Christian heritage.  

Do you agree?

EVANGELICALS PROMOTE DISHONESTY

If adherence to the truth and its final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is what constitutes an evangelical, departure from this historic position delineates a non-evangelical.  It is not a belief in the need for conversion that demarcates the evangelical from the liberal but his faithfulness to the teaching and rule of Scripture in all matters. 

Now, if ‘evangelicals,’ as seems to be the case today, are prepared to overlook, ignore, or even disobey Scripture on ecclesiastical and spiritual matters, where does that leave them?  In the same camp as their liberal colleagues.  For there is no difference.  If the liberal churchman is known for his despising of Scripture, and professing evangelicals do exactly the same under the cover of adherence to Scripture, that leaves them in precisely identical positions on this crucial matter. 

Liberals are accused by conservatives of being dishonest when they take their ordination vows.  They subscribe confessional standards with their ‘fingers crossed’ behind their backs (metaphorically speaking).  But are evangelicals any different?  Listening to them, you could be forgiven for thinking there is no difference.  While they may be more truthful when it comes to confessional subscription, when the matter of church reform is raised, that’s the one subject they object to profoundly.  The reason for this is some kind of inane belief that his church might need a little tweak here and there, but overall she is as near to the perfect church there is on earth.  Many have convinced themselves that this is so.  Some admit that things are pretty bad within their denomination, they know there is much unfaithfulness within her, they know who the ministers are who do not preach the Gospel, but they will defend her to the death against all comers.

The really interesting thing is that they all do it.  Every churchman believes his church is the closest to Scripture.  Some do not even measure it against Scripture, but see it as a lovely socio-religious body that keeps people from thinking too deeply about eternal issues. 

While evangelicals belong to churches that hold such or similar views, they are being fundamentally dishonest when they resort to defending the indefensible.  They ‘paper over the cracks’ in an attempt to show the church in better colours.  They will defend the church at whatever cost to themselves or their members, but they will not so defend the Gospel or the cause of Christ in the world when these are under attack from within their churches.  The church looks after you well, but the Gospel tends to get you into trouble, not only with the world but with the church itself.  The church is a comfortable place to be, but standing with the Gospel is dangerous.  That stand has the effect of isolating you, of causing alienation from the crowd, of leaving you friendless.  And who wants that? 

So to avoid that, we will keep on the road of dishonesty.  We’ll go on playing the children’s game, Let’s Pretend.’  That’s good fun.  We enjoy that.  It’s only a game, and no one gets offended.  Dishonesty gets you through church life successfully, and might even get you promoted.  Dishonesty pays, but honesty, while being the best and only policy, can be too costly.