The responses I have received from people associated with the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) concerning the previous post (published in the Newsletter, 26/06/09), have been most encouraging. Readers have said that in this letter, I have hit the nail right on the head, and encouraged me to send in more letters.
But given the Clerk of the Assembly's position on the connection between these two bodies, namely, that there is no legal connection between it and the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS), no one can criticise me for writing critically about the PMS. What is surprising is that ONLY members of PCI can avail of the financial services of that private club!
Now, if there is no connection between these two distinct bodies, how did so many members of PCI get to know about it? Was it promoted by the Methodist church in Ireland, or the CoI, or the Baptist and Congregational churches? Did the Plymouth Brethren, the Pentecostalists, the Roman Catholics and the Free Presbyterians, the Reformed Presbyterians and any other kind of Presbyterian body encourage their members to save and invest in this money club? It's very unlikely indeed.
As well as the official organ of that church advertising the PMS, PCI ministers were a chief means of gathering investors and savers (for they had both kinds availing of their services, as a cursory look at the paying-in frequency will disclose) for this private and exclusive society. Perhaps it is now time for PCI investors/savers in the PMS to pay these ministers a visit and ask them what they think they were doing? They knew this was a closed shop, hence a sectarian, society that disallowed EVERY other potential investor/saver using its services. While a minister within this denomination, at no time did I ever promote this club, or encourage anyone to save or invest their money in it, a policy decision of which I am particularly glad at this time.
Now they want EVERY tax payer to bail out this private club, while denying EVERY tax-payer the right to join it. Only when the PMS, if it survives this crash, allows people from any and every background to invest in, save with, and borrow from it, ought taxpayers to expected to help it at this time.
Of course I feel deeply for all those good people who, in faith, put their savings into this society, many of them for their retirement, many for weddings, and many for the education of their children. My heart goes out especially to those who genuinely cannot afford to lose such sums of money. They believed, until the fall of PMS, that it was a part of their church/denomination, that is, until the Assembly Clerk informed them otherwise. Were the ministers who encouraged saving in PMS also deceived by the senior managers of their church? Did they know exactly what the relationship was, and refused to tell their members the whole truth? Was the fact that it claimed the name PRESBYTERIAN sufficient for them to trust it? Is 'Presbyterian' synonymous with honesty, truthfulness and integrity? How quick otherwise discerning PCI members and elders were to trust that Presbyterian financial club, while they distrusted virtually everything else their own church stood for!
In Northern Ireland, sectarianism has blighted our society for many decades, and still does. The PEACE III programme has as its focal point addressing sectarianism and racism. While the PMS could not be described as racist, it can most certainly be described as sectarian. Will the government now help reinforce what is a sectarian society, on the one hand, while requiring the rest of us to create a project that actually paralyses the onward march of sectarianism, on the other?
It is really ironic and hypocritical that a financial organisation that is inextricably linked to a 'Christian' denomination can be the means of concretising sectarianism, while many of that church's ministers are to be found among those who decry sectarianism! As is usually the case, PCI is continuing to send our very confusing messages to a lost and bewildered world, the trumpet making an uncertain sound. PCI and its associated organisations would need to take a long hard look at themselves in the light of Scripture, and embark on a radical reformation of that denomination, now that Reformed Christians are celebrating the birth of John Calvin on 10th July 1509.
Sunday, 28 June 2009
PMS, the Government and Sectarianism
If sectarianism may be defined as ‘a rigid adherence to a particular sect, party or denomination, in such a way as to exclude all others,’ then the Presbyterian Mutual Society (PMS) is an example of a sectarian organisation. I say this because (1) only members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) can save in it; (2) only members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland can invest their money in it; (3) only members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland can borrow from it; (4) only members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland can be involved in the running of it.
I am Presbyterian by upbringing and conviction, but because I am not a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland , I could not, if I wanted to, avail of any of the financial services that PMS offered. That makes the society exclusivist, and perhaps even sectarian, adopting an “ourselves alone” attitude. No one outside this religious grouping can have any part in its operations.
This is not to say that I have no feelings for the sense of betrayal that many PCI members feel, or even for the hurt caused by Dr Donald Watts, Clerk of Assembly, when he publicly distanced himself and the denomination from the PMS in its difficulties. The deception by their church has caused them much hurt.
But if the UK government is going to find ways of bailing out this exclusivist and private club, then it must do the same for all other exclusivist and private clubs. Equality of treatment demands no less.
Indeed, given that the entire PEACE III funding scheme is designed to combat sectarianism, and applicant groups must adhere to this aspiration, the government, if it bails out the PMS, is again sending out mixed messages that cause confusion. It supports anti-sectarianism through the PEACE III programme, on the one hand, and it funds an essentially sectarian organisation/club, on the other.
Just what is the government’s true position on sectarianism, in light of the above points? Answers please...
I am Presbyterian by upbringing and conviction, but because I am not a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland , I could not, if I wanted to, avail of any of the financial services that PMS offered. That makes the society exclusivist, and perhaps even sectarian, adopting an “ourselves alone” attitude. No one outside this religious grouping can have any part in its operations.
This is not to say that I have no feelings for the sense of betrayal that many PCI members feel, or even for the hurt caused by Dr Donald Watts, Clerk of Assembly, when he publicly distanced himself and the denomination from the PMS in its difficulties. The deception by their church has caused them much hurt.
But if the UK government is going to find ways of bailing out this exclusivist and private club, then it must do the same for all other exclusivist and private clubs. Equality of treatment demands no less.
Indeed, given that the entire PEACE III funding scheme is designed to combat sectarianism, and applicant groups must adhere to this aspiration, the government, if it bails out the PMS, is again sending out mixed messages that cause confusion. It supports anti-sectarianism through the PEACE III programme, on the one hand, and it funds an essentially sectarian organisation/club, on the other.
Just what is the government’s true position on sectarianism, in light of the above points? Answers please...
Monday, 15 June 2009
Homosexuality acceptable in "Christian" churches
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!
'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!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)