Showing posts with label The Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Bible. Show all posts

Saturday, 16 November 2013

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.

Friday, 26 July 2013

SODOMITE SOCIETY INVITES THE WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD

SODOMITE SOCIETY INVITES 
THE WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD
A solemn message from 
Dr Alan C. Clifford 
(Norwich Reformed Church)

In pursuing so-called ‘same-sex’ marriage, the UK - along with the USA and the decadent Western world in general - is only a short step from disaster...

If it becomes law, the wrath of Almighty God is unavoidable...

Since true marriage, family cohesion and the welfare of children are under attack as never before, our hitherto Christian-based civilization is on the path to extinction... 

ALARMING ANGLICAN APOSTASY

The Nation’s religious apostasy is reaching new depths.  The Archbishop of Canterbury and Her Majesty the Queen have capitulated before the sodomite tsunami. The former has failed to ‘drive away’ the ‘erroneous and strange doctrine’ of homosexual union ‘contrary to God’s Word’ (Book of Common Prayer). 

If the Archbishop was only ‘irritated’ by the Wonga fiasco, he should have been ‘furious’ over Government-promoted sodomy...

By giving the Royal Assent to the Same Sex Marriage Bill, the Queen has broken her Coronation Oath to defend and uphold the Nation’s Bible-based values. During the recent Coronation Thanksgiving Service at Westminster Abbey, the Archbishop failed to remind the Queen of Her Majesty’s religious obligations as Head of State and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Clergy and people of the Church of England (especially the so-called Evangelicals) who fail to challenge the Archbishop and the Queen are complicit in this abominable wickedness if they simply continue passively to accept the appalling so-called ‘sexual revolution’. 

Christians of other denominations are no less guilty if they remain silent...

A greater threat than Islam is our own moral implosion...

We must repent or be ruined...

THE RISE OF GAY PERVERSION

How does 'gay' sexual perversion become popular? The Prophet Ezekiel told us long ago when he explained why God punished the Jews with exile in Babylon in 597 BC.  After centuries of growing religious and moral decline, they had become worse than the wicked Sodomites:

“As I live,” says the Lord GOD, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fulness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit” (Ezekiel 16: 48-50).

The great Genevan Protestant Reformer John Calvin (1509-64) commented:

While Moses explains the most filthy crime which reigned in Sodom (see Genesis 19), we must nevertheless remember what Ezekiel teaches, that the men of Sodom did not fall at once into such terrible wickedness; but that, in the beginning, luxury from the fulness of bread prevailed, and that afterwards, pride and cruelty followed. At length, when they were given up to [immorality], they were also driven headlong into brutal lusts. Therefore, if we dread this extreme of inordinate passion, let us cultivate temperance and frugality; and let us always fear, lest [an over-abundance] of food should impel us to luxury; lest our minds should be infected with pride on account of our wealth, and lest delicacies should tempt us to give the reins to our lusts.

So how can we restore the proper norms of correctly-defined marriage and valid sexuality? Only by heeding this practical wisdom and rejecting today's ‘PC’ do-as-you-please pluralism. In short, we must return to ‘Bible basics’!

Ultimately, our only hope is the saving and sanctifying grace of God in Jesus Christ...

A brief sermon extract from a famous Welsh Methodist preacher sets out our only hope...

The truth he speaks is eternal...

TURN TO CHRIST OR BE TURNED INTO HELL

I come to you, a neighbour of yours, and a friend well known; for I have seen the deluge of the wrath of God coming upon the world, and I am here to warn you in time. A boy on the streets of Sodom ran wildly for his father’s house, saying, ‘The shower of fire is come, for a spark fell at my side, until my clothes nearly caught fire. Is there any way of escape?’ 

Though the warning came to Sodom, it was too late. But I have come here in behalf of my God to apprise you of it in time. I have seen the shower of brimstone, a live spark of it fell upon my guilty conscience, until I became almost all aflame. But I know to-day of a place of refuge, and there is time for you to flee there too. 

O Lord my God, may this people flee to Thee! Let us flee to Calvary—‘And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land’ [Isa. 32: 2].

John Jones, Talsarn (1796-1857)

Cowardly subjects of Her Majesty who continue to revel in excessive excitement over the birth of a prince, should reflect upon the pseudo-marital decadence now endorsed by the head of the House of Windsor...

After Her Majesty’s admirable Christmas broadcast of 2012, one might have expected her to refuse to give the Royal Assent to anti-Christian perversion. How sad that her convictions were too weak to withstand Her Government‘s evil policy...

WHAT KIND OF MONARCH IS WORTHY OF LOYALTY?

‘It is an abomination for [monarchs] to commit wickedness, for a throne is established by righteousness’ (Proverbs 16: 12).

To complicity in surrendering our National Sovereignty, the Queen has now added betrayal of the Christian foundation of our religious and moral identity.

The Welsh Methodist preacher quoted above was a ‘commoner’ who was truly worthy of the ‘royal’ adulation he received...

As my new biography makes clear, this amazing Christian minister was called “The preacher of the people.” As an example of his popularity, consider the welcome he received when visiting the populous mining districts of South Wales: 

As soon as they heard of his approach, the people would flock to the doors of their houses in hundreds; the workmen would for the time leave their work, and the women, with babies on their arms, and the little children, would stand on the sides of the streets to watch the great orator of Talysarn passing; just as they would have done if a king or a queen had gone that way...


‘King John’, you are needed in these perilous times...

Monday, 22 April 2013

Church of Scotland Faces Exodus Over Gay Clergy


Church of Scotland faces exodus over gay clergy

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

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

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

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

Saturday, 30 March 2013

Was Lloyd-Jones an Amyraldian?


This post focuses on the preaching ministry of one of British evangelicalism’s greatest twentieth century preachers, Dr David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981).  It is conducted on the understanding that his commitment to the historic reformed faith is not being questioned, which means that he embraces the biblical doctrines of election and predestination.  Most Christians in the West know of the Doctor’s reformed credentials, and he is accepted as a bona fide reformed minister.  Indeed, he designates his position as “conservative evangelical. 

This post refines its focus to what is not as well known of his theological position, yet is a position that is evident in all his published evangelistic sermons.  DML-J[1] self-designates as a man of prayer and an evangelist.  Evangelism played a major role in his fifty-four years of preaching ministry.  Assumptions have been made as to the particular theology that he held, but these assumptions do not appear to be well grounded.  That DML-J believed and preached the doctrines surrounding the divine sovereignty is all things, especially in salvation, is beyond question.  Salvation is of the Lord, he teaches frequently.  He stresses the divine initiative in salvation, and directs the attention of his hearers to Christ and to Christ alone.

What is less well known of DML-J’s theology is what he believed about salvation, or as the theologians describe it, soteriology.  His soteriology is mis-understood and at times mis-represented by those who claim his as their mentor and they as his disciples.  This  mis-understanding takes the shape of a high Calvinist position in which, because he believes in the divine sovereignty in salvation, he inevitably believed in ‘limited atonement,’ as perceived by the high orthodox.  

DML-J believed that the atonement was limited in its saving effectiveness to those who believe the Gospel and trust Christ as Lord and Saviour, the elect.  In parallel with this clearly revealed Scriptural doctrine he also believed that, as revealed in Scripture, there is a universal aspect to the atonement which means that the Gospel may, indeed must, be preached to all men everywhere in the assurance that there is saving blessings to be had to any and to all who turn from their sins and trust the Saviour.  It is effective for these because it is offered to all men everywhere.  The design of God in the atonement was to make salvation available to the human race, a salvation that is sufficient to save all of humanity, and simultaneously to make that same salvation effective in the lives of those who trust Christ alone.  Provision has been made for the reconciliation of the whole world, and out of that world the elect will infallibly be saved.

As one who has been an avid reader and student of DML-J for some forty years, I have grown in my admiration for the man and his message.  This brings its own challenges because the author must be aware of personal bias in favour of the subject under discussion.  Of course, this is not a biography of DML-J, so the dangers of this happening are lessened and the temptation to write a hagiography are reduced; however, given the subject matter of this study and the author’s commitment to the biblical Gospel, the opposite danger of denigration is thereby omitted.  So an attempt will be made to present an objective a view as possible of the subject of this work.


[1]   Throughout this book, the abbreviation, DML-J, will be used for convenience when referring to Dr
    D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

Saturday, 2 March 2013

Dr Lloyd-Jones - a Personal Appreciation

On the occasion of the passing of Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones into glory, I draw to your attention this book that I wrote which is my personal appreciation of the life and ministry of this great servant of Christ and the Gospel.  Please click here to find out the influence he had on me and on my ministry.

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Roman Indulgences Not Dead Yet.

From Shaun Willcock:

A very little-understood aspect of Roman Catholic doctrine is its teaching on what it calls indulgences.  And yet just three months ago, the Roman pope, Benedict XVI, granted a "plenary indulgence" to his followers.  It is very important both for Christians and Roman Catholics to understand the subject of indulgences, to see whether or not such a teaching is found in the Word of God, the Bible.  The article that is attached with this email is an examination of indulgences in general, and in particular of this latest papal indulgence, granted to the Roman Catholic faithful in the Vatican's "Year of Faith", which began in October last year and will run till late November this year.  The Papacy's teaching on indulgences is shown to be a shocking lie and deceit.



Drawing Aside the Purple Curtain
The Papal System Today: an Analysis of the News
Limited Time Offer on Indulgences: Hurry Now
Before “Treasury of Merits” Slams Shut Again
by Shaun Willcock

Although it’s an ever-diminishing number these days, there are Protestants who still know that a mysterious thing called indulgences had something to do with the start of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. But of those who do know this, many of them are under the impression that indulgences are a relic of earlier, less enlightened times, and that they are hardly ever, if ever, mentioned within Roman Catholic circles nowadays.
How wrong they are, as the Roman pope, Benedict XVI, showed to all the world in 2012...
The Roman Pope Grants a “Plenary Indulgence” in 2012/2013
In 2012 Benedict XVI appointed a so-called “Year of Faith” for Roman Catholics, to run from 11 October 2012 to 24 November 2013. According to the Vatican-issued decree, dated 5 October 2012: “On the day of the fiftieth anniversary of the solemn opening of the Ecumenical Council Vatican II... the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI has established the beginning of a Year dedicated particularly to the profession of the true faith and to its correct interpretation, with the reading, or better, with the pious meditation of [upon] the Acts of the Council and of the Articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church”.1
As pointed out by Richard Bennett (an ex-priest) and Timothy F. Kauffman in an article exposing this “Year of Faith”, “The main reason for commemorating the Second Vatican Council during the Year of Faith is because its ecumenical overtures have been so successful”; “...the Year of Faith is nothing else than an effort to continue the marketing and repackaging of Roman dogmas that was started at the Second Vatican Council”; and, “The Year of Faith is claiming to focus on faith, but instead it draws people ever deeper into Rome’s works based salvation.”2
This present article, however, is not an examination of Rome’s “Year of Faith”, but rather of the “plenary indulgence” Benedict has granted. According to the Vatican decree, Benedict granted this indulgence to the Roman Catholic faithful on the occasion of this “Year of Faith”, and it will last for the duration of this “Year”.3
So what is this all about? It is shocking indeed, a blatant denial of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and solid evidence of Rome’s heathenish doctrine of salvation.
But What Is an Indulgence?
Before we examine this latest papal indulgence, let us understand indulgences in general. What exactly is an “indulgence”?
Here is the definition from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven,
2
which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.”4
This is not easy to understand, but let us attempt to make it as simple as possible:
According to official Roman Catholic teaching, “The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains.”5 In other words, when the Roman Catholic sins, he can obtain forgiveness for it (by confessing his sin to a priest and performing some penance given to him by the priest) and hence will not be eternally punished for his sin in hell; but he still has to experience a temporal punishment for it either here on earth, or after death in a place called Purgatory.6 An indulgence, then, is not the forgiveness of sin, but the forgiveness of the temporal punishment due because of sin.
But none of this is in the Bible at all. It is all a lie.
Rome claims that there is biblical justification for indulgences, as follows: it says that in 1 Cor. 5:1 Paul exercised the power of “binding” (as given by Christ to the disciples in Matt. 16:19 and Matt. 18:18) by inflicting a penance, and excluding this offender from the Church until he performed the penance; and then it says that in 2 Cor. 2:7, Paul exercised the power of “loosing” by remitting the remainder of the penance!
But this is so typical of Rome’s distortion of the Scriptures to suit its own purposes. In truth, to “bind” (in Matthew) can have no reference to indulgences, which are only concerned with “loosing”. These verses, then, do not support this lie. And 2 Cor. 2:6-10 clearly refers to the restoration of the offender to the local church – it does not refer to granting an indulgence.
In fact, the total absence of any biblical justification whatsoever for indulgences has even been admitted by some of Rome’s own scholars and theologians themselves! For example, the Romish “saint”, Antoninus, scholar, author, and archbishop of Florence in the fifteenth century, declared: “We have no testimony in the Scriptures, nor among the Fathers, in favour of indulgences, but only the authority of some modern authors.” And John Chrysostom (347-407 AD), patriarch of Constantinople, whose statue, along with those of Augustine, Athanasius and Ambrose, supports the papal throne in St Peter’s Basilica in Rome, wrote in his book that “Christians” must not imitate the heathens, who made use of indulgences, paying money for the absolution of sins, and imposed penances.7
A Monk Makes a Mint from Indulgences
Indulgences were a major part of what sparked Martin Luther’s protest against the Papacy, for even though Luther was still a Roman Catholic and unconverted, he could not stomach the evil of it all. And nothing more clearly shows the utterly unscriptural nature of indulgences than what occurred when a Dominican monk named Tetzel wended his way through Germany in the early years of the sixteenth century, selling indulgences to any who would part with their money. Selling them? Oh yes – indulgences were bought with money. Tetzel was rich, unscrupulous, an inquisitor, a convicted adulterer, a man who, though supposedly sworn to celibacy, took two of his children with him on his travels. Tetzel boasted: “I have saved more souls by my indulgences than the apostle [Peter, erroneously claimed by Rome as their first pope8] by his sermons. There is no sin so great that an indulgence cannot remit”. “But more than this, indulgences avail not only for the living, but for the dead. For that, repentance is not even necessary.” “Come and I will give you letters, all properly sealed, by which even the sins that you intend to commit may be pardoned .”(!) Also these truly blasphemous words: “The Lord our God no longer reigns. He has resigned all power to the pope.” And then his infamous statement: “At the very instant that the money rattles at the bottom of the chest, the soul escapes from Purgatory, and flies liberated to heaven!”
No wonder the poor blind Roman Catholics flocked to purchase that indulgence! Huge crowds gathered to hear Tetzel and to cough up the cash. Coins clattered into his money chest, the purchasers were issued a certificate, and they went on their way rejoicing, secure in the devilish delusion that they had bought their loved one’s soul freedom from the sufferings of Purgatory. And Rome’s coffers filled
3
up.
After Tetzel’s time, and because of the massive protests against it during the Reformation, “The Council of Trent... decided [in 1562] that no fees should be collected on granting indulgences.”9 Well, an indulgence may no longer be bought with money, but even so the great evil of indulgences themselves continues.
A Treasure Chest Opened... Sometimes
The pope of Rome grants this indulgence to Roman Catholics under certain prescribed conditions. If they fulfil the conditions precisely, then they will receive the indulgence. Furthermore, the indulgence can either be partial or plenary. Rome’s Catechism states: “An indulgence is either partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin.”10 In the case of the particular indulgence which Benedict XVI has granted for his appointed “Year of Faith”, it will be plenary (full).
But note something more about an indulgence, from the definition given above from the official Catechism of the Roman Catholic institution: the Roman Catholic obtains it “under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints.” What is Rome talking about here?
Well, according to its own explanation given in its Catechism, Rome’s “treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints” refers to “the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God.... This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine in their value before God. In this treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints.... they attained their own salvation and at the same time co-operated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.”11
Cutting through all Rome’s theological jargon, what this means is absolutely, shockingly anti-biblical. According to Rome, Mary and the so-called “saints” were all so holy that they attained Heaven by their good works. Note the words: “They attained their own salvation.” They earned their own salvation by their good works, or merits. But their works were so good, and so many, that they actually earned more “credits” than they needed for their own salvation! And these extra good works, these surplus merits, are supposedly laid up in a “treasury of the Church” of Rome, and can be dispensed to other Papists in the form of indulgences by the pope of Rome, when he sees fit, to deliver them from temporal punishment due to their sins! Here are the precise words from Rome’s Catechism:
“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favour of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins.”12 And: “this treasure [Christ] has committed to the care of St. Peter... and to his successors, his own vicars on earth [the popes of Rome]... who are to distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. And they are to apply it with compassion, for pious and good reasons, in order that it may benefit those who are truly contrite and who have confessed, at times for the complete remission of the temporal punishment due to sin, at times for the partial remission...”13
To put it as simply as possible: without any scriptural support whatsoever, Rome claims that some were so perfect on earth that they went to Heaven by the performance of their own works (merits) without going to Purgatory first, and are called “saints”; and their merits were so super-abundant that what they did not need in order to earn their own salvation, are added to a great “treasury of merits”; and from time to time the pope of Rome is able to dip into this treasury, to open this treasure casket for a time, and to dispense these surplus merits to others, so that their temporal punishments for sin can be remitted, either in whole or in part!
Has ever a more iniquitous teaching of salvation appeared on the earth? What devilish lies are proclaimed by this doctrine of indulgences! Let the Word of God condemn this satanic deception.
4
First, salvation is always and only and entirely by God’s grace (His undeserved favour), through faith in Jesus Christ His Son. It is never, ever earned by one’s works (merits) (see Eph. 2:8,9). And once sin is forgiven, there is no temporal punishment for sin still remaining to be paid! Second, there is no place called Purgatory, where Roman Catholics go to suffer the temporal punishment due for their sins. There is Heaven and there is Hell, and no place in between. If a person comes to Christ by faith, repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for salvation, he is fully and completely saved from his sins, and goes to Heaven immediately when he dies. Third, every single person who is saved by grace through faith is called a saint in Scripture. (e.g. 1 Cor. 1:2). Fourth, since salvation is not by works, it follows that there is no “treasury” where the extra good works of people are stored up. The saints of God cannot even gain merit by their own works for themselves – how then can they gain extra for others? (see Isa. 64:6; 1 Tim. 1:15). Fifth, the Roman pope cannot open this treasury, for the very simple reason that it does not exist.
And sixth: if indeed the pope of Rome has this power to open some great “treasury” which will so wonderfully benefit Roman Catholics, why does he not open it all the time? Or why does he not just leave it open? Or at the very least, why does he not open it regularly, say once a year? And why are partial indulgences ever granted, instead rather of plenary ones all the time? If indeed, as the Roman pope, Clement VI, pronounced, “this treasure [Christ] has committed to the care of St. Peter... and to his successors... who are to distribute it to the faithful for their salvation”, then distribute it already! If, as this same Clement pronounced, “they [the popes of Rome] are to apply it with compassion, for pious and good reasons,” what more compassionate, pious or good reasons could there be than the remission of the temporal punishment of millions at any given time? Since it is supposedly of such immense benefit to his subjects, one would think he would be magnanimous enough to do this! But no – long years may go by without the Roman pope ever lifting the lid of the treasure chest, and poor Romanists have to supposedly suffer the temporal punishment due to their sins, both in this life and in Purgatory, when their spiritual leader (they believe) could simply unlock the treasury, plunge his bejewelled fingers into it or whatever it is he has to do, and dispense the “infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God”, and the “truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine” value of the merits of Mary and the other “saints”! What kind of a monster is this man? How tragic that over a billion people trust him to help them obtain salvation! If he really has such enormous power, Roman Catholics should be battering on the door of the papal residence, demanding that he show compassion and contribute, as only he can according to their belief system, to relieve the temporal sufferings which Roman Catholics have to suffer in this life and the next because of their sins!
Now let us get back to this latest plenary indulgence, granted by Benedict XVI during Rome’s present “Year of Faith”:
According to this papal decree (in which the writings of the popes Paul VI and Clement VI are quoted): “Because it is above all a question of developing to the highest degree – insofar as it is possible on this earth – holiness of life and hence of obtaining, in the highest degree, purity of soul, very useful will be the great gift of Indulgences, which the Church, in virtue of the power conferred on her by Christ, offers to all those who with the proper dispositions fulfil the special prescriptions to obtain them. ‘With the Indulgence – Paul VI taught – the Church, making use of her power of minister of the Redemption wrought by Christ the Lord, communicates to the faithful the participation of this fulness of Christ in the communion of Saints, furnishing them in very large measure the means to attain salvation’.... Manifested thus is the ‘treasure of the Church,’ ‘of which also the merits of the Holy Mother of God and of all the elect, from the first to the last righteous’ constitute ‘a further increase’.”
So: the “Church” of Rome claims it has power from Christ to offer an indulgence to those Papists who fulfil the correct prescriptions. But where in God’s Word is such power conferred on this “Church” by the Lord Jesus Christ? Nowhere. It is simply a fiction, invented to exercise control over its subjects. Where in all the Bible are we taught that “the means to obtain salvation” is (among other things) to be found in papal indulgences? Nowhere. It is a lie. Not one verse in all the Bible can be
5
brought forward to support it.
As for calling Mary the “Mother of God”, this too is a lie: can God have a mother? And if He does, then was Mary’s mother the grandmother of God? See how Rome has turned the humble Mary into a goddess! She was the mother of our Lord’s human nature, but not of His divine nature. And where, from Genesis to Revelation, do we find the teaching that the supposed “merits” of Mary and the “saints” are stored up in some heavenly “treasury”, awaiting the pope’s pleasure as to when the key will be turned in the treasury’s lock and these merits will be dispensed to the people? Again, not in any book, chapter or verse of the entire Bible.
How Roman Catholics Are to Obtain Benedict’s Indulgence
Benedict’s decree then explains what Roman Catholics are required to do during this “Year of Faith”, in order to obtain this indulgence:
It states: “all individual [Roman Catholic] faithful truly repentant, duly confessed, communing sacramentally, and who pray according to the intentions of the Supreme Pontiff, will be able to acquire a plenary Indulgence from the temporal punishment for their sins imparted by God’s mercy, applicable in suffrage to the souls of the deceased faithful.”
And it proceeds to elaborate further:
“a. – Every time they take part in at least three instances of preaching during the Sacred Missions, or at least three lessons on the Acts of Vatican Council II and on the Articles of the Catechism of the Catholic Church in any church or ideal place;
“b. – Every time they visit by way of pilgrimage a Papal Basilica, a Christian catacomb, a Cathedral Church, a sacred place designated by the Ordinary of the place for the Year of Faith... and take part there in some sacred function or at least pause for an apt time of recollection with pious meditations, concluding with the recitation of the Our Father, the Profession of Faith in any legitimate form, invocations to the Blessed Virgin Mary and, according to the case, to Holy Apostles or Patrons;
“c. – Every time, in days determined by the Ordinary of the place for the Year of Faith... in any sacred place they participate in a solemn Eucharistic celebration or the Liturgy of the Hours, adding the Profession of Faith in any legitimate form;
“d. – A day freely chosen, during the Year of Faith, for the pious visit of the baptistery or other place, in which they received the sacrament of Baptism, renewing the baptismal promises in any legitimate formula.”
This is straightforward bribery, nothing less! If the Roman Catholic does this or that; if he hears a certain number of sermons or lessons, if he goes on a particular pilgrimage, if he “at least pauses for an apt time of recollection with pious meditations”, if he prays a certain prayer or invokes certain “saints”, if he renews the baptismal promises someone else made for him when he was a baby, etc., etc. – then, having done these works in the proper manner, he will acquire this indulgence. None of this is in the Bible. It is spiritual bribery, and part of Rome’s false teaching of salvation by one’s own merits.
Hogwash Presented as Christianity
Again: if indulgences were real, why does Benedict not simply open that “treasure chest” and let them flow out to the people? Why does he not at the very least just leave the treasure chest open, so that the super-abundant merits of the “saints” can benefit the multiplied millions of Roman Catholics today? Even if they were worried that this would cause the chest to be eventually emptied, at least millions of souls would have obtained relief from the temporal punishment due to their sins in this life or in Purgatory!
Ah, but he will not, because he cannot. It is all hogwash. Salvation is “not of works”, it is by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and as such is the free “gift of God” (Eph. 2:8,9). It is not by a complicated man-made religious system of confessing sins to a priest, performing some penance to
6
earn forgiveness, being absolved by the priest, then having the supposed temporal punishment for sins remitted by indulgences, either in this life or in a fictional Purgatory. Salvation is a free gift of God, given to all His elect, and it is a complete and perfect salvation. They do nothing to earn or merit it.
Is Roman Catholicism Christian? Is the “Church” of Rome a true Christian church, or a heathenish religion? The answer is obvious to anyone with eyes to see.
Under the Curse of the Council
Oh, and just to end by revealing the true nature of this Whorish religion masquerading as a Christian church: at the Council of Trent, held in the sixteenth century, Rome declared as an official article of faith: “Whereas the power of conferring indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church, and she has... used the said power.... The sacred, holy synod teaches and enjoins that the use of indulgences... is to be retained in the Church, and it condemns with anathema those who either assert that they are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.”14 Oops... I have just come under her infamous condemnation of anathema. In past ages this would have been my death sentence, and still today this is the Papacy’s desire, all ecumenical overtures notwithstanding. She may use different tactics at present, but the old hatred remains.
January 2013
Shaun Willcock is a minister of the Gospel. He runs Bible Based Ministries. For other articles (which may be downloaded and printed), as well as details about his books, audio messages, pamphlets, etc., please visit the Bible Based Ministries website; or write to the address below. If you would like to be on Bible Based Ministries’ email list, to receive all future articles, please send your details.
ENDNOTES:
1. Decree Granting Plenary Indulgence for Year of Faith, October 5, 2012. Zenit.org.
2. RC “Year of Faith” Unfaithful to Christ and His Gospel, by Richard Bennett and Timothy F. Kauffman. Berean Beacon. www.bereanbeacon.org.
3. Pope Benedict XVI Grants Plenary Indulgence to Faithful, October 5, 2012. Zenit.org.
4. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1471. Published by Paulines Publications Africa/Mambo Press, 1994.
5. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1473.
6. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1472.
7. Ex-Priest Answers Attack by Roman Clergy, by Peter J. Doeswyck, pgs. 6,7. Knights of Christ, Inc., Long Beach, California, 1956.
8. Pope Peter? by Shaun Willcock (Gospel tract). Published by Bible Based Ministries, and available for purchase in printed format, or freely downloadable from the website: www.biblebasedministries.co.uk.
9. The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, pg. 484. Revised edition edited by J. Neuner, S.J. and J. Dupuis, S.J. [Jesuits]. Collins Liturgical Publications, London, 1986.
10. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1471.
11. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 1474-1477.
12. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 1478.
13. Clement VI, “Jubilee Bull Unigenitus Dei Filius (1343).
14. The Council of Trent, “Decree Concerning Indulgences”.
7
Bible Based Ministries
info@biblebasedministries.co.uk
www.biblebasedministries.co.uk
This article may be copied for free distribution if it is copied in full
WORLDWIDE CONTACT FOR BIBLE BASED MINISTRIES:
Contending for the Faith Ministries
42055 Crestland Drive
Lancaster, CA 93536
United States of America
BBMOrders@aol.com

Thursday, 27 December 2012

Lloyd-Jones - His Life, Work and Significance


David Martyn Lloyd-Jones (1899-1981)

His Life
David MartynLloyd-Jones was born on 20th December 1899 in Cardiff, Wales, the middle son of Henry and Magdalene Lloyd-Jones, Harold and Vincent being the other siblings.  His father was a small but reasonably successful businessman in Llangeitho, Cardiganshire.

Wales had known the outpouring of God’s Spirit in earlier times under the ministries of men like Daniel Rowland, Howell Harris, William Williams, Christmas Evans, Evan Roberts, and not least John Jones of Talsarn.  At the close of the nineteenth century and after great visitations of God, Wales was a dark spiritual wilderness, despite the many churches and chapels that lay scattered around the country.  The Lloyd-Jones family belonged to the Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Church in Llangeitho.  This denomination had grown cold during Martyn’s boyhood and adolescence, and much of the life of the revivals of 1904/5 had become a faint memory.

The Calvinistic Methodist Church which the Lloyd-Jones family was connected to can trace its beginnings to the mid-1700s, a time when the Christian churches in Britain were divided into two main groupings – the Arminians under John Wesley (17??-17??) were the Methodists, and the Calvinists under George Whitefield were the Presbyterians, Congregationalists and Baptists.  Both these groups faced their own particular problems.  The Methodists emphasised the free will of men and ignored the need for depraved men to be sovereignly regenerated by the effectual call of God.  The Calvinists were also facing challenges; while they emphasised the sovereignty of God in salvation, they degenerated into hyper-Calvinism in which there was no longer any Gospel for a lost mankind. 

They denied the free offer of salvation to all men through Christ the Saviour of the world, and with that they sidelined the need for evangelism and missions. 

The young Martyn had a fairly uneventful boyhood up to January 1910.  On a winter’s night everything would change for the whole family, and not least for young Martyn.  In the early hours, a fire broke out which nearly cost the lives of the three boys who were sleeping upstairs.  The family was spared, but most of their possessions were lost, a loss from which Henry never fully recovered. 

The three boys joined as members of the church at Llangeitho in 1914 at the encouragement of their minister.  However, while they enjoyed the debate on religious matters, each was more committed to his career than to his professed faith; this was a common thing in their day.

The family moved to London in 1914 where his father set up a milk delivery business.  Martyn shared in the rounds of the business.  With the family, they attached themselves to the Charing Cross Chapel (now Orange Street Congregational Chapel) and Martyn attended there throughout his young adulthood and student days in the capital.  He continued his education and commenced his training to be a medical doctor at St Bartholomew’s Hospital in London (known affectionately as Barts).  By the age of 26 he had gained his MD degree and the MRCP.  From these facts, it is clear that, as a young doctor, he was well up the Harley Street career ladder.  He obviously has a lucrative career in medicine before him.

The Charing Cross Chapel where the Lloyd-Jones family attended was no different from the other congregations in the connexion.  But what stood in its favour was the fact the Welsh Calvinistic Methodism sought to take a mid-way between high Calvinism and Arminianism.  They held tenaciously to the doctrines of grace but unlike their English counterparts, they did not believe that being Calvinistic meant ignoring the heart and emotions.  For them, it was a “whole Gospel for a whole man.”  Holding to correct doctrines apart from what Whitefield called a “felt Christ” was wrong and potentially spiritually dangerous.  They saw a need for a return to Bible preaching rather than preaching of doctrinal statements, catechisms and confessions.  They also emphasised the need for spiritual revival. 

DML-J has begun to feel the promptings of the Holy Spirit in his life and in the fullness of time realised he was a lost sinner who needed Christ as his Saviour.  While he enjoyed the religious debates he had with other Sunday School scholars, Martyn had another debate going on which only he knew about, a debate that was raging within his own heart.  He was becoming concerned about his own spiritual condition.  He had thought all along he was a Christian because he was a church member, but he knew he was not.  Only later did he come to see his need of Christ and His salvation.  He knew that he needed to hear the Gospel being preached clearly, and he also knew that this was not what he was receiving in his church.  In fact, his minister preached on the assumption that all were Christians, which was a common reality in many Presbyterian churches of that era, and sadly also of today.  But while reading for himself, the truth of God’s love for the world dawned upon him, and he came to see that Christ died for all men, and therefore for him, and he entrusted himself to the Saviour of the world, whom he was later to preach with great effectiveness.

It was this Welsh religious history that played a crucial role in the development of Martyn’s life and ministry.  He married Bethan Philips in 1927, also a trainee medical doctor, and who became a Christian under her husband’s faithful preaching in Sandfields.  Afterwards the young newly-weds moved to Port Talbot in South Wales, where Dr Lloyd-Jones was installed as minister of the Forward Movement of the Presbyterian Church of Wales at Sandfields, Aberavon. 

His Work
Although he had preached a few times before realising that he was being called by God into the Christian ministry, DML-J had ministered in Sandfields while working with Sir Thomas Horder at Barts.  After one of these visits, the congregation decided that they wanted to call him as their minister, which they did.  He accepted the call of the congregation as the call of God, and went back to his beloved Wales in 1927 to commence what was to be an eleven year ministry of careful biblical expository preaching.  As well as being aware of the call of God on his life, DML-J was so impressed with the conditions of the poor in London among whom he had worked as a physician; hence, Aberavon was a logical choice as his sphere of ministry.  This town had a population of about 5,000 people who lived in sordid, squalid and overcrowded conditions; or as someone put it, Aberavon was a place for the bookie, the prostitute and the publican.  Here his convictions about the Gospel would be tested to the limit.  On being asked whether or not he knew if he could preach, he candidly admitted that he did not know; but he did know what needed to be preached – the Gospel of redeeming grace to a lost world.
In the church in Sandfields, his approach was so different to that of other ministers who came straight out of a liberal theological college with a corresponding liberal theological education.  DML-J knew what he believed, and he declared that message uncompromisingly and with authority.  His message can be distilled to this: he preached Christ and Him crucified, determining with Paul not to know anything among them but this.  Some church members did not like this message, and left.  But they were replaced gradually with those who were drawn by God’s Spirit and gripped by the truth, and these were mainly the working class in South Wales.  They were converted to Christ under the Doctor’s authoritative biblical preaching.  He did not have emotionally charged appeals after his sermons, but allowed the Lord to do His own saving work in their hearts.  But God used this young man with the clear message of God’s love for mankind and His justice and righteousness, and God brought one hard case after another to the Cross and to saving faith in Christ alone.
The stir this preacher caused is difficult for those who do not sit under that kind of ministry to understand.  Given that he had not been theologically trained in the recognised way, DML-J was a man who got his message from the Bible.  He saw as his role to preach the Bible verse by verse and passage by passage.   As his preaching ability became more widely known, many demands were made for him to preach outside his own congregation and in many different places. 
On 28th November 1935, he was invited to preach in the Royal Albert Hall in London to an assembly of Christians.  He dealt with the problems he saw with many of the forms of evangelism that were being used in the church, comparing and contrasting them with the Biblical model.  In the congregation that evening was Dr G. Campbell Morgan (then 72), minister of Westminster Chapel, London.  Having heard of DML-J, and having listened to him on that evening, he wanted, in 1938, to have him as his colleague and successor in Westminster Chapel.  But this was not so easy because overtures had been made to him to become Principal of Bala Theological College in North Wales.  The call to stay in Wales and also to head up the training of future ministers of the Presbyterian Church in Wales was strong.  Eventually, the call to London prevailed, and the family transferred to London in April 1939 and he worked alongside Dr Morgan from September 1938, thus providing him with the respite he needed at that time.  Dr Morgan died in 1945 and DML-J was sole pastor of that great London congregation. 
DML-J’s work became critical to the resurgence of Reformed theology in the United Kingdom (UK).  His sermon series were soon demanded in print, and his expository sermons on the Sermon of the Mount were published, and these expositions stand today as classical sermons which set the pattern for what truly expository preaching is. 

After the ravages of war, in 1947, the congregation grew quickly and the balconies were opened.  From 1948 until 1968 when the Doctor retired as minister of Westminster Chapel, the congregation averaged 1,500 in the mornings and 2,000 at the evening services.  He died and went to be with his Lord on 1st March 1981, entirely appropriate for a Welshman since this was St David’s Day.

His Significance
Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has been rightly described as the most influential preacher in twentieth century Britain, if not the world.  His preaching gifts were unequalled, therefore the influence he exerted on preachers across many denominations and none, together with the legacy that he left in his printed and now digitally re-mastered sermons is incalculable.  His books are listed in the Bibliography, and currently there are about 1,600 sermons available for download, covering his main sermon and lecturing series.  His 53 years of ministry have left an indelible mark on British and international evangelicalism. 

Amongst the extra-church involvements of DML-J can be accounted his setting up the Banner of Truth Trust, the Evangelical Library, The Westminster Fellowship, Tyndale House, The InterVarsity Fellowship, the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students, etc. 

While DML-J, who was capable of thinking independently but without disparaging the contribution of earlier generations of God’s servants, applied his mind to understanding and preaching the Gospel, he was not swayed by everything he read.  Instead, his practice was to weigh everything against the clear teaching of Scripture, on the hand, and by the teaching of the Welsh Calvinistic Methodists, on the other.  His practice was to use the Robert Murray McCheyne Bible reading scheme where, if followed, one would read the entire Bible once a year, and the New Testament and Psalms twice.  His knowledge of Scripture was proverbial, and this he used to assess everything he read. 

But as is usually the case when his theology is examined, he created as much controversy after his life as he did while he was still ministering.  Controversy was stirred because of his views on ecclesiology, Pentecostalism, and his understanding of the sealing/baptism/filling of the Spirit.

However, his theology of one aspect of soteriology is now causing some controversy, specifically his understanding of the universality of the Gospel.  Since the Gospel is to be preached to every creature, does that mean that what is offered in the Gospel is for all men equally?  Has God revealed His will to save all men on condition of faith, or did He send Christ to save only His elect?  What DML-J actually preached, as discovered in his published sermons, stands in clear contrast to what some reformed theologians and preachers held to be the authentic Christian message. 


Tuesday, 18 December 2012

The Pat Finucane Killing - The Inside Story

Truth is an important commodity that we in Northern Ireland have dispensed with in a bid to appear to be PC, committed to Equality, fairness, justice, etc.

I met Sean O'Callaghan in London in 2000.  He was in the Southern Command of the IRA and carried out many murders in Northern Ireland.  He now sees things very differently, and is prepared to write and speak about what he knows, to be profound annoyance of the IRA.

The has heard the Finucane side of the story, as well as that propounded by their republican friends.  Now it is time to hear the other side of the story - the truth about Pat Finucane, LLB.

Why am I publishing this particular story now?  First of all, it is big news in Northern Ireland  the Irish Republic and throughout the rest of the UK.  Second, this murder was wrong and indefensible. and third, very few people have yet heard the inside track of Pat Finucane's activities.

So I want to share with my readers, through this website that is growing in popularity, another side of the Finucane story that will help put the entire event into proper context.  Truth is important to the Finucane family and its supporters, so let us have the whole truth.

You might be interested in this paper.


This from the former Head of PIRAs Southern Command, Sean O'Callaghan:

I knew Pat Finucane reasonably well. I first met him in 1980 at a high-level IRA finance meeting in Letterkenny, Co Donegal. The meeting took place in a private room above a public house. Also present were Gerry Adams, the now-dead Tom Cahill, Pat Doherty (now the MP for West Tyrone) and several others.


Adams and Finucane arrived together in the morning and left at lunchtime. Did Finucane introduce himself as a member of the IRA? No. Did anyone present describe him as such? No. It was, however, exclusively an IRA meeting and quite clearly, without doubt, understood to be so by all present. That is the evidence of my own eyes and ears and I stand by it today as I did yesterday and as I will tomorrow.


Of course Finucane should not have been murdered, and if it is proved that anyone played a role in that murder they should pay the price. But he was not the blameless, innocent "human rights" lawyer beloved of nationalist Ireland and the quasi-liberal chattering classes in the United Kingdom.


He came to visit me several times in Crumlin Road prison in Belfast, where he spent much of his working life acting as a trusted conduit between the IRA prisoners and the leadership on the outside. Finucane wanted to represent me, but expressed no interest in my legal position. All he wanted to know was what I had told the police, and there is no doubt in my mind as an individual that he was acting as an IRA member and exploiting his own legal position for the benefit of that organisation.


When an IRA member was arrested, the first person to gain access to him was usually a solicitor. The organisation on the outside was often desperate to discover if the prisoner had made any statements incriminating himself or others, had provided information on arms dumps or future IRA operations or even had been turned by the security forces.


This was where an individual solicitor such as Finucane was invaluable to the organisation. He was different to many other lawyers who held strong political views. The renowned Belfast solicitor Paddy McCrory was undoubtedly a staunch republican, but he was a constitutionalist who demanded the highest standards from the state and never believed that the law was a weapon to be exploited by a terrorist organisation.


Pat Finucane was first and foremost an IRA volunteer, and he exploited his position ruthlessly to wage his war on the state. In Crumlin Road, I once explained to him that I had admitted the attempted murder of a UVF member from Portadown and went into some detail.


When I finished he looked at me with contempt on his face: "And after all that, you missed him." Hardly what you would expect to hear from a peace-loving man who believed in the primacy of law. The last occasion I met him was in Crumlin Road about 27 hours before he was murdered: I was, in fact, the last prisoner he spoke to.


Pat Finucane was an effective agent for the IRA. Who knows what "punishments" were exacted by the IRA as a result of his activities? Finucane did end up being murdered, but not because being a member of the IRA was immediately punishable by murder or execution - unlike being a member of the RUC , the Army, the judiciary, a civilian worker at a security force base or an agent for the state.


Strange old "troubles"; a very strange "dirty war". To anybody who has involved himself in Northern Ireland, none of this should come as any surprise. How Pat Finucane would laugh at his continuing effectiveness.

========================================================================

I guess that you did not know this side to the story, but now you do.  This changes the way you see things, and helps to promote the fuller truth about this man who is deemed to be a human rights lawyer, but whose human rights, it seems, were only for IRA terrorists.

God's law clearly says, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER.  It is not your right to do so.  No murderer has eternal life in him, says Jesus Christ.

Sunday, 16 December 2012

Where are the Ministers When Crises Arise?

The country and world in which we live is facing crisis after crisis.  Every day brings a fresh crisis.  God has set His watchmen on the lookouts to keep watch for His people.

Yet these crises come and no one seems to notice.  Certainly the ministers who are the watchmen do not see these crises coming.  Nor do they recognise them as crises when they eventually arrive.  Are they asleep?  Are they mere hirelings - drawing a salary, having an easy time?  Today, we see sodomy being made legal and official, but the watchmen have been silent.  We see abortion on demand, and still the silence continues.  We see marriage under relentless attack, and they are silent.  We see the Gospel being perverted by theological liberals, yet God's servants sit back in their relative ease and say nothing.  Worse, they do NOTHING.

God's people are discouraged, enraged, disappointed and betrayed.  They looked for men who will act as watchmen, but they were asleep while the enemy was entering the fold.  They thought they had such a man, but alas, they were deceived.  He fought no battles, fronted no campaigns, raised no alarms.  And the church of Jesus Christ has been decimated.

God says He will require an answer from that man at the last Day.  Indeed, He will require their blood at his hands.  He has been unfaithful and the Lord's people have been attacked and scattered.  God will require this at the watchman's hand.

One can quite seriously ask, 'Where are the ministers when the flock is being attacked?  Why are they not defending the flock?  Why aren't they taking a stand against all that it inimical to the spiritual well-being of the flock?  Why aren't they raising a massive ecclesiastical row when the Gospel is being denied by not being preached in every congregation?'  The church is in crisis.  But where are the ministers, the shepherds, who will ward off the prowling wolves who often come in sheep's clothing?

Are they too late?

Perhaps they ought to follow the lead given by Jaques de la Fontaine, the French Protestant minister who rose above and triumphed over many crises that confronted him because he was essentially a pastor of principle.  His story will inspire all who read it.


Friday, 7 December 2012

Christian Marriage Under Political Attack

Despite promises by government ministers at Westminster and also by the Justice Minister, David Ford, MLA, in Stormont, Northern Ireland (Mr Ford, a ruling elder in 2nd Donegore Presbyterian Church, Northern Ireland) voted in support of same-sex marriages in the recent Stormont debate on the question), that churches would be protected by legislation if they did not want to perform such 'marriages,' there will be no protection whatever, if David Cameron gets his way.  Mr Cameron has today (Fri. 7th Dec. 2012) backed a huge policy change to introduce same-sex marriages in churches.
The media is reporting that the Government will confirm its intention to force through the redefinition of marriage.
Introducing same-sex weddings in churches and other religious premises is a radical departure from the consultation proposals.  More than that, it is a radical departure from the traditional understanding of marriage as held by virtually all churches and religious bodies throughout history.  Government Ministers promised that religious believers could not be forced to hold homosexual weddings because it would not even be possible to register them in churches or other religious premises.  Mr Ford also confirmed that churches would be protected by legislation.
But now that promise has been broken.  It is not that Mr Cameron & Co have had a change of mind; I believe that it was always their intention to proceed along this road and that this 'announcement' is but the making public what was already covert in their proposals.  Christians, Jews, Muslims and others will be exposed to the legal nightmare of equality and human rights laws, as well as the intrusion of the European courts.  Ministers We have no confidence in so-called ‘safeguards’ Ministers will offer.
This could well have the effect of destroying the Christian church and religion altogether.  It is another attack of the liberal establishment of church and state to rid the eartyh of these people called Christians, and of other faith groups that hold to a similar understanding of marriage.
But this is going to come up against an irresistible force - the power of Almighty God.  His Son , Jesus Christ, has said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the church that He is building on earth.  Mr Cameron & Co has decided to take on the Lord God of hosts, and we'll what becomes of that.  He and they are standing on most precarious ground.  His wrath is upon them.  They are hanging over the pit of hell and it is only the mercy of God that prevents them falling to their eternal loss and misery.
C4M has taken legal advice from leading human rights lawyer, Aidan O’Neill QC, who has made it clear that the only completely safe course for churches will be to stop hosting weddings altogether, a massive change to Britain’s social landscape.  This attack on marriage is therefore an attack on the Christian church.  It is a way of squeezing the churches to such an extent that to perform marriages as understood and practices by Christian Churches will be for them to act in an illegal manner.  The QC has also shown that, quite apart from the issue of buildings, individual people from any background who believe in traditional marriage face damage to their careers or even dismissal from their jobs, especially teachers, chaplains, foster carers and others in the public sector.
It is clear that this is also an attempt to drive as many Christians out of the workplace as possible.  It is persecution by another name and means.  It is a form of ethnic cleansing of believers from the workplaces and churches of our country.
The Bill to redefine marriage will be published in the New Year. We understand there were behind-the-scenes attempts to publish a wafer-thin Bill next week to avoid proper scrutiny of the details by Parliament. Thankfully that seems to have been prevented by internal arguments.
When any government has to do its work behind closed doors because it knows how unacceptable its proposed policy change is, then that is further evidence of Satanic inspiration behind this move.
We are monitoring developments hour-by-hour and will bring you further news as it emerges.
Please be assured that C4M will do all it can to stop these massively unpopular plans.  Christians and all others who are concerted about these nefarious developments must be alert and aware of what is being done by our government.

If you are planning a wedding, why not have a look at this website for ideas about how to organise it.

Tuesday, 4 December 2012

PURITANS’ PROGRESS - Dr Alan Clifford


A 350th Anniversary Commemoration of the Norwich & Norfolk Ministers Ejected from their Churches by the Act of Uniformity, 1662. 

Dr Alan C. Clifford
Norwich Reformed Church

Remember those ... who have spoken the Word of God to you, 
whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct - 
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and for ever.
(Hebrews 13: 7-8)

We now attempt to understand why around 2000 Puritans—including all our local heroes—refused to submit to the Act of Uniformity in 1662. Since he was part of the later history of British Nonconformity, we allow Alexander Drysdale to summarize the issues for us.

[for Drysdale's scanned summary, see the attachment]


A 1662 AFTERTHOUGHT: BISHOPS, THE BIBLE & ANGLICAN TEXTUAL TAMPERING

Dr Edmund Calamy (1671-1732)—the ‘Nonconformist Champion’—commented on the deception resulting from defective translation as it relates to Acts 20: 28. Had the AV men used ‘bishop’ rather than ‘overseer’, the whole ‘PC’ Episcopalian case would been blown out of the water, since the Ephesian ‘elders’ (= ‘presbyters’) are therefore ‘bishops’. This is why Presbyterians always opposed Anglican-style bishops. Calamy further demonstrates that, to avoid the irrefutable Presbyterian case, the readings from Acts 20 and 1 Timothy 3 used in the ordination of Priests in the 1552 BCP (also in the 1549 and Queen Elizabeth’s 1559), were confined by the Restoration Anglican churchmen to the ordination of Bishops and Archbishops in the anti-Puritan 1662 Prayer Book.  

Regarding Acts 20:28, the NKJV wrongly follows the AV, which likewise agrees with Tyndale. Even the Geneva Bible is defective at this point. In this respect, the NIV is consistently accurate in using ‘overseer’ for ‘episkopos’. 

‘I cannot find that in Scripture the word Bishop ever signifies one that is superior to other ministers in power or jurisdiction, or any way above them, unless when it is applied to our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great Bishop of Souls...For which reason, I have often thought it could not be without design that our translators have in my text used the word Overseers rather than Bishops. For had they rendered it as they should have done in this manner: ‘Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops’, these words spoken to Elders or Presbyters, might have filled them with thoughts not very favourable to the Hierarchy...In the sense of Scripture, I can find no difference between Bishops and Presbyters. Our blessed Lord Jesus appears not to have made any difference between them;...nor does St Paul seem to have known any differences between Bishops and Presbyters’ (Edmund Calamy, Sermon Preached at the Ordination of Mr John Munckley, 1717, pp. 18-19, emphasis mine).

One is inclined to ask if all this matters any more. Lee Gatiss, the Director of Church Society states that ‘the old seventeenth century debates over church government or ceremonial may not divide as they once did’, having said in the beginning of the sentence that ‘the established church persists in refusing to recognise non-episcopal ordination and confirmation’ (The Tragedy of 1662, London: The Latimer Trust, 2007, pp. 55-6). This surely means these issues are still alive and highly divisive if Nonconformist ministers are not regarded as true pastors, as surely as the Roman Catholic Church does not recognise Anglican orders! However, if Dr Calamy’s case is as solid as it appears to be, that the Bible sets the standard for valid ministry, then neither Roman nor Anglican priests are valid in the sight of our Lord Jesus Christ. This, in fact, is the high theological ground demanded by the Truth of God.

Iain Murray tends to minimise the importance of all we’ve considered when he concludes:

We should greatly underestimate the seriousness of 1662 if we imagined that the cleavage which then took place was only over phrases in the Book of Common Prayer and forms of Church order. These things were involved, but the Puritans regarded them as only a part of a much wider issue, namely, what is the nature of true Christianity? The Nonconformists believed that in acting as they did they were acting for the Gospel’ (Sermons of the Great Ejection (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1962, pp. 7-8).

It seems more correct to say that the Puritans objected to more than ‘phrases’ in the BCP.  They took issue with dominant features of the book precisely because they viewed them as a denial of ‘true Christianity’. At best, because of most (but not all) of the Thirty-nine Articles and many good features of the Prayer Book, it was an unholy mixture. Baxter and his brethren could not therefore give ‘unfeigned consent to all and everything’ in it, as agreeable to the Word of God. This is serious. It can only mean that if the Puritans ‘acted for the Gospel’, then the conforming Anglicans and their Episcopal lords were acting against the Gospel. One cannot imagine a more serious charge, when today’s Nonconformists—especially those involved in the former-BEC AFFINITY umbrella body—seem to have grown weary of their distinctives just when a highly lax and compromised evangelicalism seems more firmly ensconced than ever within the present confused and corrupt Church of England.