It's true! Churches that 'claim' to be 'reformed' now accept homosexuality as an alternative expression of human sexuality. Officially, homosexuality is now OK, regardless of what the Bible teaches. And some good evangelicals in such churches are quite content to minister there! However, in so doing they are compromising their own theological and moral stand far more than they will admit.
'But it's OK,' they argue. 'As long as I am free to exercise my ministry, I'll put up with the situation.' Now, no self-respecting Presbyterian will live as easily with this situation as some evangelicals do, even though their personal stance is biblical. Perhaps, they take the same line as the current Moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, who made such a public 'hoo haa' over the ordination of women to the Christian ministry, but who, when, what they call 'high office,' was being offered, his 'principles' were reduced to mere 'personal preferences.'
That might be the same for those evangelicals within morally corrupt reformed churches who retain fraternal relationships with the Church of Scotland, where the Presbytery of Aberdeen ordained/installed a practicing homosexual minister to a congregation.
I must say that if these men are now correct in their understanding of sexuality, then I, and many others, are owed an apology by those ministers who taught me otherwise! And some of them were Church of Scotland ministers! These churches and ministers are sending out mixed messages to their congregations. There is nothing to stop any 'gay' church member bringing a charge against an evangelical for preaching that homosexuality is an abomination, and the church establishment that does not believe this must then discipline the biblical minister for holding to the teaching of the Scriptures, and against the position of the church.
How sad and depressing it is when professing Christian churches treat the Word of God so glibly, so unfaithfully. I know that not only has Roman Catholicism got serious moral problems facing it today, so also have the Protestant churches. The moral standard of the church is the Moral Law of God, summarily comprehended in the ten commandments.
But the moral decline does not stop with the 'gay' issue. While evangelicals are quick to teach the sinfulness of sexual sin, and rightly so, they are much slower to teach that murder is immoral. Now why would they be slow to do this? Because, in their eyes, murder is not a moral issue for the church at all, but a political issue, and the church must not stray into politics. Even here, the mixed messages of the church are apparent, because if murder is employed as a political tool, then it cannot be sinful. So evangelicals are silent about these issues.
So it is not only theological liberals who are select in what they believe and preach - evangelicals do this, too. And the church suffers from such compromised thinking, God is enraged, and the Gospel disgraced.
The need for men of God to be raised up in the churches today is urgent. There are few, if any, reforming spirits within the churches today, because no one seems to give a toss about the spiritual health of the churches! There are many 'time-servers' in all the churches today who are there to get their time in as easily as possible, be able to draw down there pension when they retire, and cause as little bother for themselves as possible, proof that they truly are mere 'time-servers.'
Where are the Farels in today's church? Where are the Calvin's, the Luthers, the Baxters, those great men of 'true grit' who love the truth more than they love their own lives? Where are the 'reformers' within the churches, for there are not a few who pretend to be reforming the church, when all they are doing is playing at it!
At the end of the day, these play-actors will have much more to answer for than they imagine. They will never be able to say they care much for their Father (God), when they care little for their Mother (the Church). But to talk like this is to cause stirrings of conscience, and we mustn't have that now, mustn't we? Sad to say, the church is going to hell as fast as her feet can carry her, while the shepherds, the ministers and other elders are playing religious games. What an awful judgement awaits those men!
Monday, 15 June 2009
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Christian believers demeaned by pietistic preachers
I am at a loss to understand how any intelligent evangelical can state a position that the only Christians who are serving the Lord are those who do it somewhere other than in their home area and outside their daily calling!
It reveals a very low view of God and of Christian service. The only people who are serving the Lord, according to this truncated and unbiblical view, are those who do it for two weeks in the summer, or in a foreign country, or with a Christian organisation. That is precisely why the churches today do not pray for their Christian members who are doing 'ordinary' jobs the entire year round. Their daily work is sub-Christian, according to this view, therefore not to be supported prayerfully.
So if a joiner or other tradesman does this work for a Christian organisation, he is to be prayed for, but if he, as a Christian, does the same work for a non-Christian, it is no longer Christian service for the Lord. If a Christian nurse or doctor or teacher fulfils their calling in Africa with a church or with a Christian organisation, that person is serving the Lord; but if he or she works in a hospital at home, then their work cannot be deemed to be Christian service. How strange!
So what constitutes service as "service for the Lord" is NOT the fact that God has graciously called a sinner to Himself and brought him/her into His divine service, but WHERE s/he does it, and for whom it is done.
Such theological and spiritual nonsense is widespread within evangelical churches today, is offensive to Christ, and demeans the Christian witness and service of Christians who serve Christ at home.
Good Christian people must redress this shocking imbalance - to put the best gloss on it - and insist that their work is regarded equally as service for the Lord, regardless of where it is done. What makes it Christian, then, is where it is done, for whom it is done, and who pays you for doing it (if it is paid work).
Spiritual leaders within the churches must take this issue up with those preachers who are spreading such confused thinking among the flock, over which God has made them overseers. Elders must seek to discuss this with their minister, ascertain the biblical basis for their viewpoint, ask why Christians at home are not being prayed for, why Christians in hospital and/or as patients are not seen as missionaries and prayed for, etc. Why are Christian teachers not regarded, in this view, as serving the Lord, or any other Christian worker? If the only service for the Lord is being done by a few Christians for a very short period of time each year, then may God have mercy on us all. It is most offensive to the Body of Christ for any minister to infer that Christians fulfilling their divine calling in 'ordinary' occupations are not serving the Lord.
A much more biblical position is to see every Christian as someone who has been called by God from the full-time service of Satan into the full-time service of Christ. Can you imagine any unbeliever serving his evil master in a part-time manner? Surely the imaginations of the thoughts of their hearts are only evil continually (Gen.6). They are/were the full-time servants of Satan.
So when they are saved, they become, not part-time servants of Christ, but full-time servants of their new Master. The view I am criticising leaves Christians with the option of not serving Christ with their whole lives, and still be regarded as Christians. This is impossible, for when a sinner receives Christ for salvation, s/he is receiving a whole Christ, as Lord as well as Saviour. If that Christian is not submitting to, and serving Christ as Lord, he has not got Him as Saviour; for a half Christ cannot be served because a half Christ does not exist.
Every Christian lives his/her life under the Lordship of Christ; that means that his/her life is one of dedicated service to the Master. Every Christian is in full-time service for the Lord, and not just some who are viewed as super-spiritual because they serve the Lord in a normal way and in a normal context.
Every Christian ought to be encouraged to see their Christian lives as acts of service in themselves, as sacrifices to the Lord (Rom.12). No matter what a Christian's calling is in this world, they duty and privilege is to serve the Lord with their whole hearts. Indeed, there is much less opportunity for spiritual pride in the Christian who drives a lorry or bus to the glory of God, as there is for a minister! This biblical view reduces to nil the opportunity for spiritual pride (the very pride that caused Lucifer to lose his exalted place in heaven!), whereas the other view provides everything that is required for spiritual pride to take root and grow.
All Christians must learn, then, that as Christians, their privilege as believers is to offer their lives as living sacrifices unto the Lord, which is their reasonable service. Never accept anything less than this. Indeed, every believer who meets in God's house for the worship of His Name is serving God - do we not call these 'services'?
We must get away from all kinds of superficial spirituality, and return to the Bible's clear teaching on the position of the Christian in the Kingdom of God.
It reveals a very low view of God and of Christian service. The only people who are serving the Lord, according to this truncated and unbiblical view, are those who do it for two weeks in the summer, or in a foreign country, or with a Christian organisation. That is precisely why the churches today do not pray for their Christian members who are doing 'ordinary' jobs the entire year round. Their daily work is sub-Christian, according to this view, therefore not to be supported prayerfully.
So if a joiner or other tradesman does this work for a Christian organisation, he is to be prayed for, but if he, as a Christian, does the same work for a non-Christian, it is no longer Christian service for the Lord. If a Christian nurse or doctor or teacher fulfils their calling in Africa with a church or with a Christian organisation, that person is serving the Lord; but if he or she works in a hospital at home, then their work cannot be deemed to be Christian service. How strange!
So what constitutes service as "service for the Lord" is NOT the fact that God has graciously called a sinner to Himself and brought him/her into His divine service, but WHERE s/he does it, and for whom it is done.
Such theological and spiritual nonsense is widespread within evangelical churches today, is offensive to Christ, and demeans the Christian witness and service of Christians who serve Christ at home.
Good Christian people must redress this shocking imbalance - to put the best gloss on it - and insist that their work is regarded equally as service for the Lord, regardless of where it is done. What makes it Christian, then, is where it is done, for whom it is done, and who pays you for doing it (if it is paid work).
Spiritual leaders within the churches must take this issue up with those preachers who are spreading such confused thinking among the flock, over which God has made them overseers. Elders must seek to discuss this with their minister, ascertain the biblical basis for their viewpoint, ask why Christians at home are not being prayed for, why Christians in hospital and/or as patients are not seen as missionaries and prayed for, etc. Why are Christian teachers not regarded, in this view, as serving the Lord, or any other Christian worker? If the only service for the Lord is being done by a few Christians for a very short period of time each year, then may God have mercy on us all. It is most offensive to the Body of Christ for any minister to infer that Christians fulfilling their divine calling in 'ordinary' occupations are not serving the Lord.
A much more biblical position is to see every Christian as someone who has been called by God from the full-time service of Satan into the full-time service of Christ. Can you imagine any unbeliever serving his evil master in a part-time manner? Surely the imaginations of the thoughts of their hearts are only evil continually (Gen.6). They are/were the full-time servants of Satan.
So when they are saved, they become, not part-time servants of Christ, but full-time servants of their new Master. The view I am criticising leaves Christians with the option of not serving Christ with their whole lives, and still be regarded as Christians. This is impossible, for when a sinner receives Christ for salvation, s/he is receiving a whole Christ, as Lord as well as Saviour. If that Christian is not submitting to, and serving Christ as Lord, he has not got Him as Saviour; for a half Christ cannot be served because a half Christ does not exist.
Every Christian lives his/her life under the Lordship of Christ; that means that his/her life is one of dedicated service to the Master. Every Christian is in full-time service for the Lord, and not just some who are viewed as super-spiritual because they serve the Lord in a normal way and in a normal context.
Every Christian ought to be encouraged to see their Christian lives as acts of service in themselves, as sacrifices to the Lord (Rom.12). No matter what a Christian's calling is in this world, they duty and privilege is to serve the Lord with their whole hearts. Indeed, there is much less opportunity for spiritual pride in the Christian who drives a lorry or bus to the glory of God, as there is for a minister! This biblical view reduces to nil the opportunity for spiritual pride (the very pride that caused Lucifer to lose his exalted place in heaven!), whereas the other view provides everything that is required for spiritual pride to take root and grow.
All Christians must learn, then, that as Christians, their privilege as believers is to offer their lives as living sacrifices unto the Lord, which is their reasonable service. Never accept anything less than this. Indeed, every believer who meets in God's house for the worship of His Name is serving God - do we not call these 'services'?
We must get away from all kinds of superficial spirituality, and return to the Bible's clear teaching on the position of the Christian in the Kingdom of God.
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Carl R Trueman's gracious admission
I wish to thank Carl R Trueman for what is undoubtedly a most magnanimous statement on his part which acknowledges that Amyraldianism is considered “among the reformed,” and not in any way regarded as heretical, or outwith reformed orthodoxy.
However, I think I have to explain something here: you assert that Alan Clifford has mistaken views of the atonement. From the high orthodox viewpoint, this is probably true; but since Clifford was attempting to be faithful to Calvin’s own teaching on this central issue for Christian theology and for the Christian Gospel, I consider that he has done a very fine job at interpreting Calvin faithfully, and has rescued it from the ungrounded criticisms of both the Arminians and the high orthodox, the latter represented by Owen et al.
Further, with respect, I think you may have misunderstood Alan Clifford’s basic thesis, which was to expound Calvin on the atonement, and not the teaching of the ‘reformed’ per se, whom he, and I, regard as having departed from Calvin’s stated position, not to the point of being heretical, but to the point of representing a trajectory of Calvin’s teaching which the great Reformer would not have recognised as his own.
I think it is important that we deal fairly with what theologians state their views to be, and I am not inferring that you have done this; there is a tendency to play with words in such a way that nuances are altered, and those whose position is being criticised are made to say what they had never intended to say.
Clifford’s position is a sincere attempt at rescuing Calvin from those whom he considers to have distorted his teaching in such a way as to influence, in the wrong way, the message of the Gospel. So while he has parted company with the ‘reformed’ and with later Calvinists, he has stayed close to the Genevan Reformer, and has faithfully interpreted Calvin himself. The result: a rediscovery of authentic Calvinism.
However, I think I have to explain something here: you assert that Alan Clifford has mistaken views of the atonement. From the high orthodox viewpoint, this is probably true; but since Clifford was attempting to be faithful to Calvin’s own teaching on this central issue for Christian theology and for the Christian Gospel, I consider that he has done a very fine job at interpreting Calvin faithfully, and has rescued it from the ungrounded criticisms of both the Arminians and the high orthodox, the latter represented by Owen et al.
Further, with respect, I think you may have misunderstood Alan Clifford’s basic thesis, which was to expound Calvin on the atonement, and not the teaching of the ‘reformed’ per se, whom he, and I, regard as having departed from Calvin’s stated position, not to the point of being heretical, but to the point of representing a trajectory of Calvin’s teaching which the great Reformer would not have recognised as his own.
I think it is important that we deal fairly with what theologians state their views to be, and I am not inferring that you have done this; there is a tendency to play with words in such a way that nuances are altered, and those whose position is being criticised are made to say what they had never intended to say.
Clifford’s position is a sincere attempt at rescuing Calvin from those whom he considers to have distorted his teaching in such a way as to influence, in the wrong way, the message of the Gospel. So while he has parted company with the ‘reformed’ and with later Calvinists, he has stayed close to the Genevan Reformer, and has faithfully interpreted Calvin himself. The result: a rediscovery of authentic Calvinism.
What is it to be a Christian?
One of the greatest evangelists of the last century was undoubtedly Dr D. M. Lloyd-Jones, and in one of his powerfully disturbing sermons on “Revival,” a book that those interested in revival ought to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest, for the biblical wisdom that it oozes. Yet, so much of what the Doctor says is manifestly unwelcome in many Christian evangelical pulpits.
Here is an extract from his book on “Revival – can we make it happen?” taken from pages 239ff, in which he addresses the subject of what a Christian is. In this short passage, you will see the proposed variety of answers to this question, and how he demolishes the many contenders as answers to this vital question.
“It is the experience of this (principle of revelation) that really makes us Christian. What is a Christian? This is an important question, is it not? There are so many false notions current today as to what a Christian is. Some may say that a Christian is a good man. Yes, but there are many good men who are not Christians. Others say that a Christian is a man who has had a marvellous experience. Ah yes, but there are cults that can give people experiences, and they are very wonderful. A Christian, says another, is a man whose has life has been entirely changed. I know, but the psycho-therapists can do that and the cults can do that. Then again, a Christian, according to some people, is a man who has taken a decision. Yes, but you can take many sorts of decisions to be better and to live better, and to join a church, and to do a thousand and one other things, yet clearly there are many people who have done all that and are still not Christians. Well, others maintain, a Christian is someone who has had some sort of a vision, who has seen a ball of light or something like that. No, there are many people who have had that kind of experience, but who clearly cannot be admitted as Christians. They do not believe the very elements of the Christian faith. They have had the oddest and most strange and eerie experiences and have been conscious of some strange power coming into them, and upon them. Ah yes, but if you read books on spiritism and spiritualist phenomenon written by spiritists, you will find that they can duplicate all that, and most astounding things can and do happen. And it would be folly to deny the testimony to such things given by eminent scientists ... and various other people. So, I am not prepared to accept any of these statements as being determinative of whether we are Christians or not.
What is it, then, that makes a man a Christian? Well, surely it is the realisation of the fact that God has given a revelation of His own glory, in the face of Christ Jesus. ... A Christian is a man who believes that. A Christian is a man who has experienced that in a measure, or to a certain extent. That is the thing that constitutes the Christian. Not a change of life, or habits or of behaviour. Not merely being religious, not merely attempting to worship God. No, it is the realisation that God has ... given this revelation of His glory in the face of Jesus Christ."
As you look at this, how different this is from the normal and average evangelical Gospel sermon. It undercuts much of what passes for evangelical Christianity, and replaces it with the clear teaching of the Word of God.
Here is an extract from his book on “Revival – can we make it happen?” taken from pages 239ff, in which he addresses the subject of what a Christian is. In this short passage, you will see the proposed variety of answers to this question, and how he demolishes the many contenders as answers to this vital question.
“It is the experience of this (principle of revelation) that really makes us Christian. What is a Christian? This is an important question, is it not? There are so many false notions current today as to what a Christian is. Some may say that a Christian is a good man. Yes, but there are many good men who are not Christians. Others say that a Christian is a man who has had a marvellous experience. Ah yes, but there are cults that can give people experiences, and they are very wonderful. A Christian, says another, is a man whose has life has been entirely changed. I know, but the psycho-therapists can do that and the cults can do that. Then again, a Christian, according to some people, is a man who has taken a decision. Yes, but you can take many sorts of decisions to be better and to live better, and to join a church, and to do a thousand and one other things, yet clearly there are many people who have done all that and are still not Christians. Well, others maintain, a Christian is someone who has had some sort of a vision, who has seen a ball of light or something like that. No, there are many people who have had that kind of experience, but who clearly cannot be admitted as Christians. They do not believe the very elements of the Christian faith. They have had the oddest and most strange and eerie experiences and have been conscious of some strange power coming into them, and upon them. Ah yes, but if you read books on spiritism and spiritualist phenomenon written by spiritists, you will find that they can duplicate all that, and most astounding things can and do happen. And it would be folly to deny the testimony to such things given by eminent scientists ... and various other people. So, I am not prepared to accept any of these statements as being determinative of whether we are Christians or not.
What is it, then, that makes a man a Christian? Well, surely it is the realisation of the fact that God has given a revelation of His own glory, in the face of Christ Jesus. ... A Christian is a man who believes that. A Christian is a man who has experienced that in a measure, or to a certain extent. That is the thing that constitutes the Christian. Not a change of life, or habits or of behaviour. Not merely being religious, not merely attempting to worship God. No, it is the realisation that God has ... given this revelation of His glory in the face of Jesus Christ."
As you look at this, how different this is from the normal and average evangelical Gospel sermon. It undercuts much of what passes for evangelical Christianity, and replaces it with the clear teaching of the Word of God.
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Amyraldian Association Conference 2009
Reformed Christians have been enquiring about the papers that were given at the 7th Annual Amyraldian Association Conference, held in mid-April in Attleborough, Norfolk. The conference celebrated the 500th anniversary of the birth of the French Reformer, John Calvin in 1509 (10th July).
Various topics were dealt with by the six speakers, and these can be listened to at http://nrchurch.axspace.com/aa.html
Click the "2009 Conference MP3 Recordings NEW" and this will bring you to the six MP3s. Click on the paper desired, and listen.
Whilst all the papers are relevant, of particular importance to Presbyterians are the two papers dealing with Calvin and church order, delivered by Ron Barnett, an elder in Ely Presbyterian church in Cardiff, and Calvin and the covenant, dealing with Christian, or covenant, baptism, delivered by Rev Stephen Quinton, assistant minister at Norfolk Reformed Church.
Please post your comments in the box below.
Various topics were dealt with by the six speakers, and these can be listened to at http://nrchurch.axspace.com/aa.html
Click the "2009 Conference MP3 Recordings NEW" and this will bring you to the six MP3s. Click on the paper desired, and listen.
Whilst all the papers are relevant, of particular importance to Presbyterians are the two papers dealing with Calvin and church order, delivered by Ron Barnett, an elder in Ely Presbyterian church in Cardiff, and Calvin and the covenant, dealing with Christian, or covenant, baptism, delivered by Rev Stephen Quinton, assistant minister at Norfolk Reformed Church.
Please post your comments in the box below.
Calvin and Servetus
Calvin’s life and ministry were characterised by many and varied controversies. Perhaps the most damaging to his memory and legacy, in the eyes of some, is the Servetus affair. Miguel Servetus, of similar age to Calvin, and a man of great, though erratic, genius, came from Spain to Geneva. At this time, Calvin was holding his power in Geneva with difficulty, and in the February elections of 1553, the polls went in favour of his opponents. Servetus’ arrival in Geneva was providential because it was early in 1553 that he published his book, Restitution of the Christian Religion. In it, he argued that the Nicene Creed with its doctrine of the Trinity, the Christology of the Chalcedon creed, predestination, total depravity, hereditary guilt, and the doctrine of infant, or covenant, baptism which was of no efficacy unless preceded by repentance and the illumination of the Spirit; these doctrines, according to Servetus, were the chief sources of the corruption of the church. Indeed, as early as 1545, he had begun an exasperating correspondence with Calvin, whose Institutes he contemptuously criticised.
Living and working as a medical man and under an assumed name, Servetus’ saw his calling in life to disturb, not only the Roman Catholic leaders, but the entire Reformed world as well. When he got in touch with the various Reformation leaders, and eventually with Calvin, Servetus sought to convince them of the errors of their ways and to persuade them to accept his views. Servetus demanded that Calvin be exiled and that his goods given to him. The people of Geneva were not prepared to openly support such a notorious heretic, and supported Calvin’s action against him. His true identity was finally exposed and, because of his heretical views, he, along with his books, were condemned. The heresy trial, which lasted for two months, and conducted by a large competent jury, ended with Servetus being found guilty and condemned to death by a slow fire on 27th October 1553. At the stake, the condemned man displayed “frantic terror” and yielded up his soul with the suffocating cry, “Jesus Christ, Thou Son of the Eternal God, have mercy upon me.” Even in death, Servetus would not recognise Christ as the Eternal Son of God.
While some voices were raised at this, many supported Calvin’s decision to have Servetus executed, agreeing that it was “justly done.” Many regard this trial as odious and the outcome tragic; but for Calvin, it was a great victory, because it freed the Swiss churches from any imputation of unorthodoxy regarding the Trinity. Calvin’s detractors “ruined themselves by making difficult the punishment of one whom the general sentiment of that age condemned.”
In such a tenuous position, it took great courage in Calvin to see this matter through to its conclusion. Humanly, his position was somewhat precarious, but from heaven’s perspective, he could do no other than remove the theological poison from the churches of that day. Obviously he believed that what he was doing was agreeable with, and conformable to, the Word of God, and thus for the ultimate good of the church. His own comfort and success were not uppermost in his mind, but the overall good of the church and of the Gospel in the church. Servetus he saw as “an enemy of the truth,” who was to be removed from the church, and even from the world. They must not be tolerated in the church who find the everlasting Gospel intolerable.
How sparse courageous ministers are in the church today! How few men there are who take the Gospel seriously, when it is challenged by theological liberalism and ecumenism, and other ‘isms’! Where are the men of ‘true grit’ in the modern church? Where are the “Calvins” who not only profess they believe in the Gospel, but demonstrate in practical terms that they do? They are not hard to count! Even those regarded as men of theological principle can and do fall to pragmatism and the lure of ecclesiastical politics and position, counting the Gospel as a matter of personal preference rather than biblical principle.
But not so Calvin. He knew his Book, he knew his God, and he remained true, regardless of personal consequences.
It is quite interesting and disturbing that the modern liberal evangelical churches sing "worship songs" that teach the very doctrine for which Servetus was burned at the stake. He was put to death for denying that Christ was the Eternal Son of the Eternal God. Unthinking and untaught liberal evangelicals do exactly that today. The words of one popular song go, "I believe in Jesus; I believe He is the Son of God." Servetus believed Christ was the son of God, but not the Eternal Son of God. Christians are sons (children) of God, and no different from Jesus, according to Servetus and the liberal evangelical religion of today. Yet there are not the reformed men of courage and conviction who are prepared to oppose such heresy being taught as evangelical truth, why? Because these are the very men who include such heretical teaching in the services of worship for which they are responsible.
I ask again, "Where are the Calvins" in today's decadent churches? Answers please in the comment box.
Living and working as a medical man and under an assumed name, Servetus’ saw his calling in life to disturb, not only the Roman Catholic leaders, but the entire Reformed world as well. When he got in touch with the various Reformation leaders, and eventually with Calvin, Servetus sought to convince them of the errors of their ways and to persuade them to accept his views. Servetus demanded that Calvin be exiled and that his goods given to him. The people of Geneva were not prepared to openly support such a notorious heretic, and supported Calvin’s action against him. His true identity was finally exposed and, because of his heretical views, he, along with his books, were condemned. The heresy trial, which lasted for two months, and conducted by a large competent jury, ended with Servetus being found guilty and condemned to death by a slow fire on 27th October 1553. At the stake, the condemned man displayed “frantic terror” and yielded up his soul with the suffocating cry, “Jesus Christ, Thou Son of the Eternal God, have mercy upon me.” Even in death, Servetus would not recognise Christ as the Eternal Son of God.
While some voices were raised at this, many supported Calvin’s decision to have Servetus executed, agreeing that it was “justly done.” Many regard this trial as odious and the outcome tragic; but for Calvin, it was a great victory, because it freed the Swiss churches from any imputation of unorthodoxy regarding the Trinity. Calvin’s detractors “ruined themselves by making difficult the punishment of one whom the general sentiment of that age condemned.”
In such a tenuous position, it took great courage in Calvin to see this matter through to its conclusion. Humanly, his position was somewhat precarious, but from heaven’s perspective, he could do no other than remove the theological poison from the churches of that day. Obviously he believed that what he was doing was agreeable with, and conformable to, the Word of God, and thus for the ultimate good of the church. His own comfort and success were not uppermost in his mind, but the overall good of the church and of the Gospel in the church. Servetus he saw as “an enemy of the truth,” who was to be removed from the church, and even from the world. They must not be tolerated in the church who find the everlasting Gospel intolerable.
How sparse courageous ministers are in the church today! How few men there are who take the Gospel seriously, when it is challenged by theological liberalism and ecumenism, and other ‘isms’! Where are the men of ‘true grit’ in the modern church? Where are the “Calvins” who not only profess they believe in the Gospel, but demonstrate in practical terms that they do? They are not hard to count! Even those regarded as men of theological principle can and do fall to pragmatism and the lure of ecclesiastical politics and position, counting the Gospel as a matter of personal preference rather than biblical principle.
But not so Calvin. He knew his Book, he knew his God, and he remained true, regardless of personal consequences.
It is quite interesting and disturbing that the modern liberal evangelical churches sing "worship songs" that teach the very doctrine for which Servetus was burned at the stake. He was put to death for denying that Christ was the Eternal Son of the Eternal God. Unthinking and untaught liberal evangelicals do exactly that today. The words of one popular song go, "I believe in Jesus; I believe He is the Son of God." Servetus believed Christ was the son of God, but not the Eternal Son of God. Christians are sons (children) of God, and no different from Jesus, according to Servetus and the liberal evangelical religion of today. Yet there are not the reformed men of courage and conviction who are prepared to oppose such heresy being taught as evangelical truth, why? Because these are the very men who include such heretical teaching in the services of worship for which they are responsible.
I ask again, "Where are the Calvins" in today's decadent churches? Answers please in the comment box.
Calvin and the Libertines
When John Calvin arrived in Geneva in 1553, he was met by the godless Libertines. This group appealed to the freedom of the Spirit as an excuse to indulge the desires of the flesh. They argued against the Evangelists, jeered at the Apostles calling each of them nicknames, and denied the resurrection. Some have said of the Libertines, that the "communion of saints" meant the common possessions of all goods, including other men's wives. They were sexually immoral and proud of their liberty, and all the while insisting on their right to attend the Lord's Table.
But the Reformer opposed them. ‘A dog barks if it sees someone attacking its master,’ says Calvin. ‘I would be cowardly if I remained silent and did not make a single sound when I see the truth of God being attacked.’
Calvin was concerned about the well-being of the church and community. Experience taught him that “the upshot of serious doctrinal deviation was moral mischief.” No tolerance whatever should be shown to heretics. Calvin entered this conflict, determining that “nothing short of their suppression and extinction” be settled for. His love for the Church and for the Gospel demanded manly courage in this situation. Indeed, true pastors will be known by such a zeal for the truth burning them up. Calvin knew nothing of a “nice quiet country living” for the minister! Ministry for him meant daily battles with “the enemies of the truth.”
To Calvin, the shepherds of the church must not only provide good food for Christ’s flock, but must also keep watch against wolves and thieves. Calvin saw it as his God-given responsibility to argue against this dangerous sect, in his view, the most pernicious in the world. In addition, believers had asked him to speak out against this sect in view of the havoc they were creating, but Calvin held back to see if this evil would go away, not the wisest decision the Reformer ever made. It didn’t, and he had to speak out.
This sect was led by Quintin Thieffry, and Calvin simply had to expose their use of Scripture, in which they interpreted it allegorically, and even expected Calvin and Co. to go beyond it in search of new revelations. Such a suggestion angered Calvin, who viewed it as heretical to go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. If these ‘theologians’ were prepared to tamper with the Scriptural data, they would have Calvin to answer to. Making Scripture say what the writers never intended it to say was anathema to the Reformer, a lesson we all need to keep in mind.
These Libertines were dogma-driven, but Calvin was data-driven; they had made up their minds about what the Scripture taught, and then looked for texts to back up those beliefs. Calvin sought what God was saying in His Word, and drew his doctrine from that. The two methodologies could not have been more different. And the doctrines they arrived at were also very different. The truth of God was being attacked by these men, and Calvin could not remain silent. And neither can we!
The Libertines were quite a troublesome lot, and became very concerned about there being too many ministers (Geneva only had four, but for them, this was four too many), too many sermons, and Calvin was writing too many books. These men wanted to abolish the sermon from church services because in these sermons, their promiscuous life-styles were being lashed by this faithful preacher, and this condemnation found its way into the press and from platforms. They preferred a harmless kind of worship – we might say, a user-friendly form of worship where anything goes, where large numbers of contemporary worship-tasters are attracted, where there is a high level of worldly entertainment, where the Word read and preached is kept to a respectable minimum, and where the young are catered for fully – this is the kind of worship services the Libertines desired, the kind of thing we see in all liberal evangelical churches around our country. Tozer puts it well when he talks about "that part of the church that cannot be satisfied without a vists from the latest gospel peddler, who promises cowbells, a musical hand-saw, and a lot of other novelties." These Genevan ‘liberals’ were prepared to tolerate, as a minimum, the “Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments,” as the content of teaching. More than that was too much, too dangerous, and not needed.
Those who denigrate and who wish to minimum the reading of the Word and biblical preaching, are not keeping very good company!
Here is what one historian writes on the occasion of these Libertines wishing to come to the Lord’s Supper:
"The eventful morning dawned. The bell invited the people to the church of St. Peter. The Libertines were present, with their swords (drawn), determined to communicate (saying, ‘Administer communion to us or you will die.’ ). Calvin preached on the intention of the sacred ordinance, and spoke of the state of mind necessary for obedience to the Lord’s command. At the close, he said: “As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since He hath given me fortitude, and I have received it from Him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master’s rule, which to me is clear and well known. As we are now about to receive the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be.” - He then left the pulpit, and stood at the table. Removing the white cloth, and covering the bread and wine with his hands, he said, with a voice that rang through the building, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.”
As if the very power of God prevailed, a calm succeeded, and the Libertines retired.... A solemn silence enabled the Reformer to celebrate the sacred ordinance in awe, as if the Lord Himself had been manifestly present. The question in the mind of Calvin was not whether he or the Libertines should succeed; but whether the Reformation should be wrecked at the very table of the Lord. He stood firm; and victory remained with him."
Calvin's courage against the Libertines was tested because it wasn't easy to face down the threat of swords. But it was obvious to Calvin that the thought of the Libertines participating in the Supper of the Lord was a thought worse than death. Calvin’s determination to fence the Lord’s Table displayed tremendous courage, a trait that is seldom found within modern evangelicalism, and a lesson we still have to learn.
But the Reformer opposed them. ‘A dog barks if it sees someone attacking its master,’ says Calvin. ‘I would be cowardly if I remained silent and did not make a single sound when I see the truth of God being attacked.’
Calvin was concerned about the well-being of the church and community. Experience taught him that “the upshot of serious doctrinal deviation was moral mischief.” No tolerance whatever should be shown to heretics. Calvin entered this conflict, determining that “nothing short of their suppression and extinction” be settled for. His love for the Church and for the Gospel demanded manly courage in this situation. Indeed, true pastors will be known by such a zeal for the truth burning them up. Calvin knew nothing of a “nice quiet country living” for the minister! Ministry for him meant daily battles with “the enemies of the truth.”
To Calvin, the shepherds of the church must not only provide good food for Christ’s flock, but must also keep watch against wolves and thieves. Calvin saw it as his God-given responsibility to argue against this dangerous sect, in his view, the most pernicious in the world. In addition, believers had asked him to speak out against this sect in view of the havoc they were creating, but Calvin held back to see if this evil would go away, not the wisest decision the Reformer ever made. It didn’t, and he had to speak out.
This sect was led by Quintin Thieffry, and Calvin simply had to expose their use of Scripture, in which they interpreted it allegorically, and even expected Calvin and Co. to go beyond it in search of new revelations. Such a suggestion angered Calvin, who viewed it as heretical to go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. If these ‘theologians’ were prepared to tamper with the Scriptural data, they would have Calvin to answer to. Making Scripture say what the writers never intended it to say was anathema to the Reformer, a lesson we all need to keep in mind.
These Libertines were dogma-driven, but Calvin was data-driven; they had made up their minds about what the Scripture taught, and then looked for texts to back up those beliefs. Calvin sought what God was saying in His Word, and drew his doctrine from that. The two methodologies could not have been more different. And the doctrines they arrived at were also very different. The truth of God was being attacked by these men, and Calvin could not remain silent. And neither can we!
The Libertines were quite a troublesome lot, and became very concerned about there being too many ministers (Geneva only had four, but for them, this was four too many), too many sermons, and Calvin was writing too many books. These men wanted to abolish the sermon from church services because in these sermons, their promiscuous life-styles were being lashed by this faithful preacher, and this condemnation found its way into the press and from platforms. They preferred a harmless kind of worship – we might say, a user-friendly form of worship where anything goes, where large numbers of contemporary worship-tasters are attracted, where there is a high level of worldly entertainment, where the Word read and preached is kept to a respectable minimum, and where the young are catered for fully – this is the kind of worship services the Libertines desired, the kind of thing we see in all liberal evangelical churches around our country. Tozer puts it well when he talks about "that part of the church that cannot be satisfied without a vists from the latest gospel peddler, who promises cowbells, a musical hand-saw, and a lot of other novelties." These Genevan ‘liberals’ were prepared to tolerate, as a minimum, the “Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments,” as the content of teaching. More than that was too much, too dangerous, and not needed.
Those who denigrate and who wish to minimum the reading of the Word and biblical preaching, are not keeping very good company!
Here is what one historian writes on the occasion of these Libertines wishing to come to the Lord’s Supper:
"The eventful morning dawned. The bell invited the people to the church of St. Peter. The Libertines were present, with their swords (drawn), determined to communicate (saying, ‘Administer communion to us or you will die.’ ). Calvin preached on the intention of the sacred ordinance, and spoke of the state of mind necessary for obedience to the Lord’s command. At the close, he said: “As for me, so long as God shall leave me here, since He hath given me fortitude, and I have received it from Him, I will employ it, whatever betide; and I will guide myself by my Master’s rule, which to me is clear and well known. As we are now about to receive the Holy Supper of our Lord Jesus Christ, if anyone who has been debarred by the Consistory shall approach this table, though it should cost my life, I will show myself such as I ought to be.” - He then left the pulpit, and stood at the table. Removing the white cloth, and covering the bread and wine with his hands, he said, with a voice that rang through the building, “These hands you may crush; these arms you may lop off; my life you may take; my blood is yours, you may shed it but you shall never force me to give holy things to the profane, and dishonor the table of my God.”
As if the very power of God prevailed, a calm succeeded, and the Libertines retired.... A solemn silence enabled the Reformer to celebrate the sacred ordinance in awe, as if the Lord Himself had been manifestly present. The question in the mind of Calvin was not whether he or the Libertines should succeed; but whether the Reformation should be wrecked at the very table of the Lord. He stood firm; and victory remained with him."
Calvin's courage against the Libertines was tested because it wasn't easy to face down the threat of swords. But it was obvious to Calvin that the thought of the Libertines participating in the Supper of the Lord was a thought worse than death. Calvin’s determination to fence the Lord’s Table displayed tremendous courage, a trait that is seldom found within modern evangelicalism, and a lesson we still have to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)