I am a bit surprised when ministers say that getting ministerial colleagues to stay closer to the WCF was the way to reform the church.
My view was, and still is, that the church has to be reformed according to the Scriptures, the church's supreme standard, NOT any manmade document, no matter how good it might be. The 'rule of faith' requires this, does it not?
Ministers and elders are to submit conscience to no other authority than the Word of God, revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.
I think you will agree with me when I say that the reason the church is in such a decadent condition is because she has departed from the truth, the Scriptures, the Word of God. There is no way that any Christian and Reformed church body can substitute anything for the supreme place the Scriptures ought to have, for anything else!
It is my conviction that our country, and indeed the whole world, is as they are today because of the state of the church. Society reflects accurately the spiritual condition of the church.
Yet there is no one to "stand in the gap," no one to bring the living Word of the living God to a faithless church and a perishing nation. Where are the true prophets of God who bring His message to the decadent church and nation? Is there no one who sees what is happening, or are there too many 'time servers' - as a former colleague of ours from the ... Presbytery described them? We are getting too many sermons, but precious few messages from God!
How often do we celebrate great men like Calvin and his true sons and successors, Baxter, the Wesley's, Whitefield, Edwards, Brainard, Chalmers, Ryle, yet we all tend to run a mile from doing what they did! We praise them for their sacrifice in the cause of God, but we will be sure to protect ourselves when it comes to standing for God and His truth.
What does it say about a church that encourages men, and women, who are liberals, ecumenists, modernisers, Arminians, and Gospel haters, to subscribe the WCF at the various milestones, yet it hounds out true evangelical reformed ministers, and no one cares a toss! As someone once famously said, "You cannot criticise what you are prepared to tolerate."
If we can stir one another up to greater faithfulness to the Lord and His Gospel, then there is hope for the reformation of His church. But if we insist on being "firm's men" to the core, then we care nothing for the well-being of Christ's body on earth, and she will never be reformed according to the Word of God, or transformed into the likeness of Christ.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Sunday, 6 September 2009
WCF now the Supreme Standard in the Presbyterian Church
It is with quite some dismay that I learned in conversation with a former ministerial colleague that the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) has now replaced Scripture as the supreme standard of that church, in effect if not on paper. Dismay, I say, but not surprise, because churches that claim to be "reformed" tend to move towards the hyper end of things while the truly reformed churches that followed Calvin and his worthy sons and successors maintained Scriptures supreme position within the churches.
It was claimed that insisting that ministers adhere to the WCF was easier and more productive of orthodoxy than desiring them to stay close to Scripture. I asked him if this new position was not a denial of the rule of faith, and a lowering of the supreme position that the Scriptures have always had within the Calvinistic churches. He disagreed that there was any change to the position of Scripture as the supreme standard of his denomination, but insisted that the WCF was less capable of spurious interpretation than were the Scriptures. I disagreed with him on this point.
If the WCF is so watertight when it comes to matters of orthodoxy, why then is it possible to be a fully fledged liberal and ecumenist within the church to subscribe that Confession as the confession of his/her faith? Indeed, why are there so many different interpretations on what the Scriptures really are, and their meaning, the identity of the Antichrist, on the issue of sacramental discipline, on the matter of what constitutes the Gospel, on inter-church relations and inter-faith activities, etc. These matters are important, yet within his church, the understanding and practices are diverse, a point that does not appear to be of any great concern to evangelical and reformed ministers within that denomination. Every elder, both teaching and ruling, subscribes the WCF as the confession of his, or her, faith, and accepts it as a true summary of what the Scriptures teach.
This departure from John Calvin's orthodoxy is inevitable when Scripture is deposed in practice from its supreme and authoritative position within any ecclesiastical body. Confidence in the final authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice is diminished, and recourse is had to man-made compilations that are more or less faithful to Scriptures own teaching.
Indeed, there is an argument that the compilers of the WCF had already succumbed to the high Calvinism of Owen et al as seen most clearly in its chapter on the Mediator. It is true, moreover, that there were ministers present who did not agree with the high orthodox stand of the majority, but were convinced that they too could subscribe this document in all good conscience.
When compared with Calvin's teaching on the atonement, WCF is very wide of the mark. Yet what other doctrine is of such great importance than that which sets out its understanding of Who the Mediator is, and What it was He came to do for the salvation of the world. The WCF is very faulty here, yet this minister would insist that evangelical and reformed ministers within his denomination adhere strictly to the confession's teaching that Christ died only and exclusively for the elect. This an informed preacher or elder could not possibly do!
It was claimed that insisting that ministers adhere to the WCF was easier and more productive of orthodoxy than desiring them to stay close to Scripture. I asked him if this new position was not a denial of the rule of faith, and a lowering of the supreme position that the Scriptures have always had within the Calvinistic churches. He disagreed that there was any change to the position of Scripture as the supreme standard of his denomination, but insisted that the WCF was less capable of spurious interpretation than were the Scriptures. I disagreed with him on this point.
If the WCF is so watertight when it comes to matters of orthodoxy, why then is it possible to be a fully fledged liberal and ecumenist within the church to subscribe that Confession as the confession of his/her faith? Indeed, why are there so many different interpretations on what the Scriptures really are, and their meaning, the identity of the Antichrist, on the issue of sacramental discipline, on the matter of what constitutes the Gospel, on inter-church relations and inter-faith activities, etc. These matters are important, yet within his church, the understanding and practices are diverse, a point that does not appear to be of any great concern to evangelical and reformed ministers within that denomination. Every elder, both teaching and ruling, subscribes the WCF as the confession of his, or her, faith, and accepts it as a true summary of what the Scriptures teach.
This departure from John Calvin's orthodoxy is inevitable when Scripture is deposed in practice from its supreme and authoritative position within any ecclesiastical body. Confidence in the final authority of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice is diminished, and recourse is had to man-made compilations that are more or less faithful to Scriptures own teaching.
Indeed, there is an argument that the compilers of the WCF had already succumbed to the high Calvinism of Owen et al as seen most clearly in its chapter on the Mediator. It is true, moreover, that there were ministers present who did not agree with the high orthodox stand of the majority, but were convinced that they too could subscribe this document in all good conscience.
When compared with Calvin's teaching on the atonement, WCF is very wide of the mark. Yet what other doctrine is of such great importance than that which sets out its understanding of Who the Mediator is, and What it was He came to do for the salvation of the world. The WCF is very faulty here, yet this minister would insist that evangelical and reformed ministers within his denomination adhere strictly to the confession's teaching that Christ died only and exclusively for the elect. This an informed preacher or elder could not possibly do!
SPURGEON WAS WRONG ON INFANT, OR COVENANT, BAPTISM
Norwich Reformed Church
THEY MET JESUS
Little Children
Introduction
The accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke of Jesus blessing the children rather suggests that the children—their number unspecified—were quite young. Luke alone indicates they were ‘infants’. In which case, they could hardly have ‘met’ Jesus consciously. That said, they felt the Saviour’s touch and embrace even if they were too young either to be aware of or to remember the encounter. Nonetheless, this important incident is given considerable significance by all three gospel writers (see Matt. 19: 13-15; Mk. 10: 13-16; Lk. 18: 15-17).
For all its brevity, John Calvin is surely correct to comment tenderly that ‘This story is very useful’. Indeed, ‘it teaches us that Christ does not receive only those who voluntarily come to Him of a holy desire and moved by faith, but also those who may not yet be old enough to realize how much they need His grace. These small children still have no understanding that they should seek His blessing. Yet when they are brought He receives them kindly and lovingly and consecrates them to His Father in a solemn ceremony of blessing’ (A Harmony of the Gospels).
1. THE BRINGING OF THE CHILDREN
Concentrating on Mark’s account (the fullest of the three), we note the deep desire of the parents to bring their offspring to Christ. Highly critical of the ungracious reaction of the disciples (for reasons not mentioned), the ‘greatly displeased’ Lord rebuked them, responding warmly to the devoted parents. Jesus then insisted on two things. First, little children are to be welcomed into God’s kingdom, however small (v. 14). Second, a childlike spirit is necessary for all who are saved whatever their age (v. 15).
Whatever reasons explain the disapproval of the disciples, they clearly thought it was ‘beneath Christ’s dignity to receive children’ (Calvin). Dr Philip Doddridge makes some equally tender and challenging observations on this passage:
(a) Christ’s regard [for the children] must have been exceedingly pleasing to the parents; but the memory of this condescension might make tender and lasting impressions on the children themselves.
(b) The sight must be very edifying and encouraging to other young persons who might happen to be present; not to say how instructive this gentleness may be to ministers, and how much their usefulness may, or might have been, promoted by a due regard to it.
(c) Our Lord might reasonably be the more displeased with his disciples for endeavouring to prevent their being brought, as He had so lately set a child among them, and insisted on the necessity of their being made conformable to it (see Matt. 18: 2-4) (The Family Expositor).
Doddridge also refers to an early tradition that ‘the celebrated Ignatius, afterwards [pastor] at Antioch, was one of [the] infants’ blessed by Jesus. It was also claimed that Ignatius—martyred at Rome by the Emperor Trajan in 107 AD—grew up to become a disciple of the Apostle John.
2. THE BLESSING OF THE CHILDREN
In the tender picture described in v. 16, three specific details should be noted. First, Jesus took the children up in His arms. Second, he put His hands on them, and Third, he ‘blessed them’. Was this a merely sentimental gesture or something of spiritual substance? Doddridge rightly comments that ‘the blessing’ was ‘a rite very early used’ among Jews. Calvin strongly states that ‘the laying on of hands was certainly no frivolous or empty symbol, nor did Christ pour forth His prayers into the empty air. But He could not solemnly present them to God without giving them purity’. In short, the whole incident had spiritual significance, however it might be understood, since it was performed by Christ Himself, the King of the kingdom!
Before we look at this episode in relation to Baptism, we should note the all-important consideration of God’s disposition towards children in general. On this matter, the Scriptures leave us in no doubt.
1. See Deuteronomy 1: 39.
(a) Clearly, the children of the rebellious Israelites were not penalised on account of their parents’ sin. They were too young to have knowledge of good and evil and, unlike their parents, would be permitted to enter the Promised Land. (b) The Promised Land which the children would inherit was typical of God’s eternal kingdom (see Hebrews 11: 13-16).
2. See 2 Samuel 12: 23. Since David believed in the reality of the heavenly afterlife, his words would make no sense if the dead child was not safe in heaven. Compare this with David’s despairing cry over his rebellious son Absalom’s death in 2 Samuel 18: 33. The Cushite’s report of Absalom's death offers no hope for the dead rebel (see v. 32).
3. See 2 Kings 4: 26. Concerning the dead child of the Shunammite woman, the mother affirmed - in answer to Gehazi’s question, “Is it well with the child?” - that ‘it is well’. The inference is obvious. In its dead condition, there was nothing to fear in respect of the child’s eternal welfare. Interestingly, no mention is made of the child’s circumcision, the sign of its Israelite status and gracious acceptance by God.
4. See Ezekiel 16: 21. During Israel’s wicked and idolatrous apostasy, children were sacrificed by fire to the ancient pagan Canaanite deity Moloch. God calls the sacrificed little ones ‘my children’. They were evidently safe with Him despite the sins of the parents.
5. See Jonah 4: 11. God showed particular compassion towards the little ones of wicked Nineveh. Significantly, God was ‘gracious and merciful..., slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness’ (v. 2) towards Gentile children. Being outside the covenant circumcised people of Israel was no barrier to their salvation.
6. See Jeremiah 31: 15-17 and Matthew 2: 18. There is every reason to believe that the children killed by Herod’s men were as eternally safe as those sacrificed to Moloch (see #4 above). We may surely say of such victims that ‘the children shall come back’, as Jeremiah was careful to say (see Jer. 31: 17). Notwithstanding the parents’ grief, their children’s position was not hopeless however horrific their death was.
In view of this Old Testament background, the loving view of little children expressed by our Lord Jesus Christ is beautifully consistent with the Old Testament - as one would expect! They are eternally safe in the Saviour’s loving arms.
3. THE BLESSING AND BAPTISM
Both Calvin and Doddridge link the blessing of the children to the sacrament of baptism (despite the fact that these and other Reformed theologians were opposed to the notion of ‘baptismal regeneration’). Were they right to do so? Furthermore, it is proper then to ask that, if Christ did something of spiritual significance to the children, why did He not baptize them also? We may further ask why Jesus did not baptize adults when He invited them to come to Him (see Matt. 11: 28)?
The simple answer to both questions is that Christian baptism was only instituted after Christ’s resurrection, in the ‘Great Commission’ (see Matt. 28: 18-20). Thus the baptism of infants has an honourable and biblical basis, in view of all we have considered. Without believing in any superstitious magic in the water of baptism, or some ‘priestly power’ in pastors, children may receive the sign of covenant blessing however eventually the renewal of God’s Holy Spirit ‘hidden within them increases and shines forth openly’ (Calvin). Since the blessing bestowed by Christ must relate to the gospel gifts of forgiveness of sin, divine adoption and spiritual renewal, the sign of gospel grace must not be withheld from children brought by their parents to our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, it must always be emphasised that no one should trust in their baptism, but in Christ alone. The blessing signified by baptism must be an ever-present reality in our lives. The blessing is meaningless if real piety (faith, obedience, Bible reading, prayer and resisting temptation) is not evident. Only if these realities exist may we be sure that we are ‘in God’s kingdom’.
In conclusion, it is interesting to recall that, on the basis of the Old Testament background cited above, the strong opponent of infant baptism—C. H. Spurgeon—rightly (in my view) taught that all children dying in infancy are saved. While Spurgeon thought that this evidence had nothing to do with baptism, others have thought differently. Interestingly, in his Commenting and Commentaries, Spurgeon commends the works of covenant paedobaptists, including Doddridge, but pre-eminently Matthew Henry first and John Calvin second! Let Matthew Henry bring our study to a close. His words speak for themselves:
I cannot but take occasion to express my gratitude to God for my infant baptism; not only as it was an early admission into the visible body of Christ, but as it furnished my pious parents with a good argument (and I trust, through grace a prevailing argument) for an early dedication of my own self to God in my childhood. If God has wrought any good work upon my soul, I desire, with humble thankfulness, to acknowledge the moral influence of my infant baptism upon it.
Dr Alan C. Clifford
THEY MET JESUS
Little Children
Introduction
The accounts of Matthew, Mark and Luke of Jesus blessing the children rather suggests that the children—their number unspecified—were quite young. Luke alone indicates they were ‘infants’. In which case, they could hardly have ‘met’ Jesus consciously. That said, they felt the Saviour’s touch and embrace even if they were too young either to be aware of or to remember the encounter. Nonetheless, this important incident is given considerable significance by all three gospel writers (see Matt. 19: 13-15; Mk. 10: 13-16; Lk. 18: 15-17).
For all its brevity, John Calvin is surely correct to comment tenderly that ‘This story is very useful’. Indeed, ‘it teaches us that Christ does not receive only those who voluntarily come to Him of a holy desire and moved by faith, but also those who may not yet be old enough to realize how much they need His grace. These small children still have no understanding that they should seek His blessing. Yet when they are brought He receives them kindly and lovingly and consecrates them to His Father in a solemn ceremony of blessing’ (A Harmony of the Gospels).
1. THE BRINGING OF THE CHILDREN
Concentrating on Mark’s account (the fullest of the three), we note the deep desire of the parents to bring their offspring to Christ. Highly critical of the ungracious reaction of the disciples (for reasons not mentioned), the ‘greatly displeased’ Lord rebuked them, responding warmly to the devoted parents. Jesus then insisted on two things. First, little children are to be welcomed into God’s kingdom, however small (v. 14). Second, a childlike spirit is necessary for all who are saved whatever their age (v. 15).
Whatever reasons explain the disapproval of the disciples, they clearly thought it was ‘beneath Christ’s dignity to receive children’ (Calvin). Dr Philip Doddridge makes some equally tender and challenging observations on this passage:
(a) Christ’s regard [for the children] must have been exceedingly pleasing to the parents; but the memory of this condescension might make tender and lasting impressions on the children themselves.
(b) The sight must be very edifying and encouraging to other young persons who might happen to be present; not to say how instructive this gentleness may be to ministers, and how much their usefulness may, or might have been, promoted by a due regard to it.
(c) Our Lord might reasonably be the more displeased with his disciples for endeavouring to prevent their being brought, as He had so lately set a child among them, and insisted on the necessity of their being made conformable to it (see Matt. 18: 2-4) (The Family Expositor).
Doddridge also refers to an early tradition that ‘the celebrated Ignatius, afterwards [pastor] at Antioch, was one of [the] infants’ blessed by Jesus. It was also claimed that Ignatius—martyred at Rome by the Emperor Trajan in 107 AD—grew up to become a disciple of the Apostle John.
2. THE BLESSING OF THE CHILDREN
In the tender picture described in v. 16, three specific details should be noted. First, Jesus took the children up in His arms. Second, he put His hands on them, and Third, he ‘blessed them’. Was this a merely sentimental gesture or something of spiritual substance? Doddridge rightly comments that ‘the blessing’ was ‘a rite very early used’ among Jews. Calvin strongly states that ‘the laying on of hands was certainly no frivolous or empty symbol, nor did Christ pour forth His prayers into the empty air. But He could not solemnly present them to God without giving them purity’. In short, the whole incident had spiritual significance, however it might be understood, since it was performed by Christ Himself, the King of the kingdom!
Before we look at this episode in relation to Baptism, we should note the all-important consideration of God’s disposition towards children in general. On this matter, the Scriptures leave us in no doubt.
1. See Deuteronomy 1: 39.
(a) Clearly, the children of the rebellious Israelites were not penalised on account of their parents’ sin. They were too young to have knowledge of good and evil and, unlike their parents, would be permitted to enter the Promised Land. (b) The Promised Land which the children would inherit was typical of God’s eternal kingdom (see Hebrews 11: 13-16).
2. See 2 Samuel 12: 23. Since David believed in the reality of the heavenly afterlife, his words would make no sense if the dead child was not safe in heaven. Compare this with David’s despairing cry over his rebellious son Absalom’s death in 2 Samuel 18: 33. The Cushite’s report of Absalom's death offers no hope for the dead rebel (see v. 32).
3. See 2 Kings 4: 26. Concerning the dead child of the Shunammite woman, the mother affirmed - in answer to Gehazi’s question, “Is it well with the child?” - that ‘it is well’. The inference is obvious. In its dead condition, there was nothing to fear in respect of the child’s eternal welfare. Interestingly, no mention is made of the child’s circumcision, the sign of its Israelite status and gracious acceptance by God.
4. See Ezekiel 16: 21. During Israel’s wicked and idolatrous apostasy, children were sacrificed by fire to the ancient pagan Canaanite deity Moloch. God calls the sacrificed little ones ‘my children’. They were evidently safe with Him despite the sins of the parents.
5. See Jonah 4: 11. God showed particular compassion towards the little ones of wicked Nineveh. Significantly, God was ‘gracious and merciful..., slow to anger and abundant in loving-kindness’ (v. 2) towards Gentile children. Being outside the covenant circumcised people of Israel was no barrier to their salvation.
6. See Jeremiah 31: 15-17 and Matthew 2: 18. There is every reason to believe that the children killed by Herod’s men were as eternally safe as those sacrificed to Moloch (see #4 above). We may surely say of such victims that ‘the children shall come back’, as Jeremiah was careful to say (see Jer. 31: 17). Notwithstanding the parents’ grief, their children’s position was not hopeless however horrific their death was.
In view of this Old Testament background, the loving view of little children expressed by our Lord Jesus Christ is beautifully consistent with the Old Testament - as one would expect! They are eternally safe in the Saviour’s loving arms.
3. THE BLESSING AND BAPTISM
Both Calvin and Doddridge link the blessing of the children to the sacrament of baptism (despite the fact that these and other Reformed theologians were opposed to the notion of ‘baptismal regeneration’). Were they right to do so? Furthermore, it is proper then to ask that, if Christ did something of spiritual significance to the children, why did He not baptize them also? We may further ask why Jesus did not baptize adults when He invited them to come to Him (see Matt. 11: 28)?
The simple answer to both questions is that Christian baptism was only instituted after Christ’s resurrection, in the ‘Great Commission’ (see Matt. 28: 18-20). Thus the baptism of infants has an honourable and biblical basis, in view of all we have considered. Without believing in any superstitious magic in the water of baptism, or some ‘priestly power’ in pastors, children may receive the sign of covenant blessing however eventually the renewal of God’s Holy Spirit ‘hidden within them increases and shines forth openly’ (Calvin). Since the blessing bestowed by Christ must relate to the gospel gifts of forgiveness of sin, divine adoption and spiritual renewal, the sign of gospel grace must not be withheld from children brought by their parents to our Lord Jesus Christ. Of course, it must always be emphasised that no one should trust in their baptism, but in Christ alone. The blessing signified by baptism must be an ever-present reality in our lives. The blessing is meaningless if real piety (faith, obedience, Bible reading, prayer and resisting temptation) is not evident. Only if these realities exist may we be sure that we are ‘in God’s kingdom’.
In conclusion, it is interesting to recall that, on the basis of the Old Testament background cited above, the strong opponent of infant baptism—C. H. Spurgeon—rightly (in my view) taught that all children dying in infancy are saved. While Spurgeon thought that this evidence had nothing to do with baptism, others have thought differently. Interestingly, in his Commenting and Commentaries, Spurgeon commends the works of covenant paedobaptists, including Doddridge, but pre-eminently Matthew Henry first and John Calvin second! Let Matthew Henry bring our study to a close. His words speak for themselves:
I cannot but take occasion to express my gratitude to God for my infant baptism; not only as it was an early admission into the visible body of Christ, but as it furnished my pious parents with a good argument (and I trust, through grace a prevailing argument) for an early dedication of my own self to God in my childhood. If God has wrought any good work upon my soul, I desire, with humble thankfulness, to acknowledge the moral influence of my infant baptism upon it.
Dr Alan C. Clifford
Self-promotion
"When men forsake truth to advance themselves, they are asking for
disappointment" - Wm Gurnell, The Christian in Complete Armour, Vol. 2,
Edinburgh 1655, 1988:44.
Application to:
Personal life, Home, Work, Politics, Church.
disappointment" - Wm Gurnell, The Christian in Complete Armour, Vol. 2,
Edinburgh 1655, 1988:44.
Application to:
Personal life, Home, Work, Politics, Church.
Friday, 4 September 2009
Evangelicals Neglect Church
That evangelicals ought to love and care for the church of Jesus Christ in contradistinction to the liberals and the "firm's men" within the churches, should be obvious, and not need to be stated.
However, the reality is otherwise. Evangelicals, of all people, simply do not care about the health and well-being of the church!
Why do I say that? For this reason. Evangelicals are so inward-looking that they cease to be like Christ. Their outlook is so parochial that they could not care less what is happening throughout the church of which they are proud members.
This is happening because they refuse to think through the issues that their church publicly believes, turning a proverbial 'blind eye' to the evil that is hammering at their door. Theologically, they do not want to know or understand the real issues that are facing the church, thus rendering the church incapable of withstanding in the evil day when Satan attacks.
On moral issues, they are culpably blinded. Their church believes that homosexual sin and partnerships are OK, and are not a sin at all. But what do the evangelicals do? They just turn off, and live as if there were no moral challenges within the church at all.let alone to the church.
Do they really care about the spiritual health of their church? Not at all. But they have succeeded in convincing themselves that they do! And self-deception is a dreadful condition to be in!
However, the reality is otherwise. Evangelicals, of all people, simply do not care about the health and well-being of the church!
Why do I say that? For this reason. Evangelicals are so inward-looking that they cease to be like Christ. Their outlook is so parochial that they could not care less what is happening throughout the church of which they are proud members.
This is happening because they refuse to think through the issues that their church publicly believes, turning a proverbial 'blind eye' to the evil that is hammering at their door. Theologically, they do not want to know or understand the real issues that are facing the church, thus rendering the church incapable of withstanding in the evil day when Satan attacks.
On moral issues, they are culpably blinded. Their church believes that homosexual sin and partnerships are OK, and are not a sin at all. But what do the evangelicals do? They just turn off, and live as if there were no moral challenges within the church at all.let alone to the church.
Do they really care about the spiritual health of their church? Not at all. But they have succeeded in convincing themselves that they do! And self-deception is a dreadful condition to be in!
Monday, 3 August 2009
WANTED! HARMLESS MINISTERS!
Obviously, the great need of the hour, so far as some church people are concerned. A man, or a women!, who will tell us nice things about God and about ourselves, who will tell us stories every Sunday, and tickle our ears with more amusing stories. Someone who will turn both blind eyes to what is really going on within the church, or even within his/her own congregation, and all for the sake of peace. He/she needs to be someone who is good with a brush - to sweep as much religious and theological nonsense under the carpet as possible. Ideally, s/he must be the 'pet lamb' of the flock - nice and warm and cuddly, to be admired and gocked at by all and sundry.
Perish the thought if he were to be a man like Luther or Calvin - look at the 'mess' they made of the church 500+ years ago in Europe, both of whom were either put out of the church or had to leave it. These men brought embarrassment to their families and friends, and lost a good, safe, lucrative career in the church. We don't want men like these. They caused big splits in the united church of that time, and now it is broken up into all kinds of, what they call, denominations. They criticised other clergy, condemned what was happening within the visible church, set about changing things that had been going on for generations, even centuries. They said the church was wrong in the way it was organised, and the clergy were wrong in what they preached to the poor people. Even the sacraments were not even being administered properly, accordingly to Calvin. What a cheek he had! And Luther overturned the way people became Christians - no longer by their own supposed 'good' works, but by faith in Christ alone! And as for paying your way to heaven, well, Luther put a spanner in the works here too. These men went to town on the church in their own day, and brought the Bible into centre place, making it the supreme standard of the church.
Had the 17th century Huguenots been the pathetic weaklings that many want in today's church, the cause of Christ in Europe would have all but disappeared. These gallant saints of God preserved the flame of reformed Christianity in a land that hated it with a perfect hatred. Thank God for their consistency in their Christian witness both within and without the churches in France, etc.
Nor do we want men like Whitefield or the Wesleys as our ministers, why? Because in many places where they went, they caused riots by their preaching, and in other places there were outbreaks of revival. These men, by their preaching got up peoples' noses, and told the people they were sinners and needed to be saved. Even Jonathan Edwards in Northampton, USA, caused all kinds of unusual happenings under his preaching, and people collapsed as he preached the Gospel. He even told them about HELL! He told them that all that was keeping these good church members out of hell was the slender thread of God's mercy, and that at any moment they could drop under the weight of their own corruption into a Christless hell forever. Scary stuff! Now, we cannot have ministers like that in our churches today, because they only upset people who otherwise were fast asleep in their sin.
Or come on a few more years, to Dundee in Scotland where Rev Robert Murray McCheyne (1813-1843) ministered for six short years (1837-1843), dying at age 29. Now, we like to hear quotations from McCheyne, but we don't want a man like him in our churches. He was too holy, too given over to God and His glory, far too straight as a preacher, convicted his hearers of their sin and guilt every time he preached, and brought them to see their abominable condition before Almighty God. He actually told them that they were unconverted, and were hell-deserving sinners! No, we don't want a man like that in the church today. That kind of preaching only turns people off and empties the churches because it shows a lack of grace and love. He only had about 1100 in his!
He even criticised other ministers, and what they preached! Could you believe it? He brought the state of the church and the nation under the microscope of the Word of God - and he was only in his mid-twenties! How dare him criticise the church or her ministers. But he did! Why? Because he loved the Lord and His Gospel much more than he loved the praise of sinful men. He loved Christ far above all others. No, men like McCheyne would not go down well in the church today.
Yet, and here's the rub, while the church might not 'want' ministers like these, she certainly 'needs' such ministers. The reformation would not have happened had the reformers not obeyed the call of God and recognised so precisely the dire needs of the church. Indeed, without the great men of courage, there would not be a reformed church anywhere in the world. Had they been 'cissies' or 'pansies,' they could not have accomplished under God what they did.
It appears that the men the church does not want today are exactly the men that she needs so sorely. The church, alone of all organisations, is of divine origin, so she of all organisations ought to be the focus of those who claim to be of a reforming spirit. Indeed, had the men within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in the seventies and eighties been the spineless males that are lauded today, that church would still be in the WCC, and would have joined the newly formed Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland in the early 1980s. Had there not been men of theological conviction, there would be no sacramental discipline in as many congregations today - Romanism would have prevailed in many of them, as it is in probably the majority of congregations within that denomination.
The sad and disappointing thing about the modern church is that there are no signs of any reformers within any of the churches today, save perhaps among the smaller denominations; but even here, the 'reformers' are frowned upon, and told not to speak about spiritual things within that denomination.
My prayer is that God would raise up a man or men who would champion the reformation of the churches in this age, and bring them back to His holy Word and Gospel. But now, as then, the reformers have always been the targets of ecclesiastical persecution.
Perish the thought if he were to be a man like Luther or Calvin - look at the 'mess' they made of the church 500+ years ago in Europe, both of whom were either put out of the church or had to leave it. These men brought embarrassment to their families and friends, and lost a good, safe, lucrative career in the church. We don't want men like these. They caused big splits in the united church of that time, and now it is broken up into all kinds of, what they call, denominations. They criticised other clergy, condemned what was happening within the visible church, set about changing things that had been going on for generations, even centuries. They said the church was wrong in the way it was organised, and the clergy were wrong in what they preached to the poor people. Even the sacraments were not even being administered properly, accordingly to Calvin. What a cheek he had! And Luther overturned the way people became Christians - no longer by their own supposed 'good' works, but by faith in Christ alone! And as for paying your way to heaven, well, Luther put a spanner in the works here too. These men went to town on the church in their own day, and brought the Bible into centre place, making it the supreme standard of the church.
Had the 17th century Huguenots been the pathetic weaklings that many want in today's church, the cause of Christ in Europe would have all but disappeared. These gallant saints of God preserved the flame of reformed Christianity in a land that hated it with a perfect hatred. Thank God for their consistency in their Christian witness both within and without the churches in France, etc.
Nor do we want men like Whitefield or the Wesleys as our ministers, why? Because in many places where they went, they caused riots by their preaching, and in other places there were outbreaks of revival. These men, by their preaching got up peoples' noses, and told the people they were sinners and needed to be saved. Even Jonathan Edwards in Northampton, USA, caused all kinds of unusual happenings under his preaching, and people collapsed as he preached the Gospel. He even told them about HELL! He told them that all that was keeping these good church members out of hell was the slender thread of God's mercy, and that at any moment they could drop under the weight of their own corruption into a Christless hell forever. Scary stuff! Now, we cannot have ministers like that in our churches today, because they only upset people who otherwise were fast asleep in their sin.
Or come on a few more years, to Dundee in Scotland where Rev Robert Murray McCheyne (1813-1843) ministered for six short years (1837-1843), dying at age 29. Now, we like to hear quotations from McCheyne, but we don't want a man like him in our churches. He was too holy, too given over to God and His glory, far too straight as a preacher, convicted his hearers of their sin and guilt every time he preached, and brought them to see their abominable condition before Almighty God. He actually told them that they were unconverted, and were hell-deserving sinners! No, we don't want a man like that in the church today. That kind of preaching only turns people off and empties the churches because it shows a lack of grace and love. He only had about 1100 in his!
He even criticised other ministers, and what they preached! Could you believe it? He brought the state of the church and the nation under the microscope of the Word of God - and he was only in his mid-twenties! How dare him criticise the church or her ministers. But he did! Why? Because he loved the Lord and His Gospel much more than he loved the praise of sinful men. He loved Christ far above all others. No, men like McCheyne would not go down well in the church today.
Yet, and here's the rub, while the church might not 'want' ministers like these, she certainly 'needs' such ministers. The reformation would not have happened had the reformers not obeyed the call of God and recognised so precisely the dire needs of the church. Indeed, without the great men of courage, there would not be a reformed church anywhere in the world. Had they been 'cissies' or 'pansies,' they could not have accomplished under God what they did.
It appears that the men the church does not want today are exactly the men that she needs so sorely. The church, alone of all organisations, is of divine origin, so she of all organisations ought to be the focus of those who claim to be of a reforming spirit. Indeed, had the men within the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in the seventies and eighties been the spineless males that are lauded today, that church would still be in the WCC, and would have joined the newly formed Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland in the early 1980s. Had there not been men of theological conviction, there would be no sacramental discipline in as many congregations today - Romanism would have prevailed in many of them, as it is in probably the majority of congregations within that denomination.
The sad and disappointing thing about the modern church is that there are no signs of any reformers within any of the churches today, save perhaps among the smaller denominations; but even here, the 'reformers' are frowned upon, and told not to speak about spiritual things within that denomination.
My prayer is that God would raise up a man or men who would champion the reformation of the churches in this age, and bring them back to His holy Word and Gospel. But now, as then, the reformers have always been the targets of ecclesiastical persecution.
Sunday, 19 July 2009
Orange Reformation
The Orange Order, unlike the church, is NOT a divine institution. Christians, therefore, and ministers in particular, ought to give their very best efforts to reforming the church, which is divinely ordained, rather than seeking to reform a man-made institution that clearly is not.
That said, I must add a few other points. The twelve qualifications of an orangeman demand that only genuine Christians are admitted to membership. What we have instead is a professedly evangelical and reformed institution that has in its membership many who hold to the teachings of Roman Catholicism, especially with regard to the way of salvation.
Ask your average Orangeman what a Christian is, and how does one become a Christian, and you'll get a variety of answers: be a good neighbour, keep the law, do good, go to your church, support your church, give to the needy, attend the sacraments, be religious in your observances, etc. Becoming a Christian, for many Orangemen, happens when you are baptised (they probably use the Roman Catholic term 'christened'), and becoming a Christian continued when you take 'holy communion.' Being a good Protestant means submission to the Bishop, believing whatever the church tells you, going to the Twelfth each year, flying your union flag, and joining the Orange Order.
I ask you: Is that biblical Protestantism or unadulterated Romanism? Well taught Christians will answer that it is the latter.
What is a Christian in the biblical sense? He is someone, who having a true sense of his lostness in sin before a holy God, flees in faith and repentance to Christ, just as he is, to the only Saviour of mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is someone who loves Christ before and above all others, and seeks to glorify Him by the way he lives his life. He is a dedicated member of his local reformed and biblical church, and who is in regular attendance at its ordinances. He seeks to bear witness to God's saving grace in Christ Jesus, has a zeal for evangelism and world mission, and lives as holy a life that it is possible for a redeemed sinner to live. He is a gracious and kindly man who is not afraid to shout when his Master and His cause are attacked. He has been born again from above, converted, delivered from darkness and death and brought into light and newness of life, redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, having been raised together with Christ. His love for Christ is real, and not just mere empty words.
That's what a true Christian really is. It is also what a true Orangeman really is.
The authentically Calvinistic, or Amyraldian, qualifications are to be welcomed, and they look good on paper. Jesus Christ is described as "the Saviour of mankind," which salvation is received by faith in the "only Mediator" there is between God and men. This begs the obvious question: why aren't only those who have received Jesus Christ by faith received into the Order's membership? If men who manifestly do not meet the membership qualifications are admitted into membership of this institution, then it ought not to surprise anyone that the trends within the Order are towards a weakening of its Christian witness. Indeed, why should we expect Christian behaviour from unregenerate people? To do so is to ask the impossible and is a denial of the Christian faith.
As a fraternal institution that carries no biblical mandate, I believe that genuinely concerned Reformed evangelical ministers within that body and who minister in seriously compromised, even apostate, denominations, ought to give their efforts to reforming what is biblically warranted, rather than dissipating their efforts on reforming something that is of no consequence one way or the other?
That the churches need urgent and radical reformation is an issue that hardly needs to be raised. Indeed, those more objective observers can see only too clearly that this is the case. Few within the churches see this in such a way that motivates them to commence the work of reformation within their own ecclesiastical bodies.
The sceptic within me will explain this as follows: to seek the reform of the Orange Order will not cost them their jobs, salaries, homes or pensions, if the reform does not work. However, if they are of truly reforming spirits and are employed by a church body, which has 'the power of life and death' over its employees, if the reform goes wrong, they will be left out in the street without home or income, not to mention the pension? The answer is YES; and that is too great a price to pay for faithfulness to Christ's Gospel.
So I believe that these good Christian brothers are taking the safe option, showing that they care more for what God has not ordained than they do for what he has ordained. This is surely a very sad situation to be in.
But if the church as visible is not in conformity to the Word of God in its organisation and doctrine - both of which must go together - then trying to conform an organisation that professes to be Protestant but has within it, and right at the very top, people who hold to the beliefs of Roman Catholicism, then the task is futile. I know some might object that that was the situation at the REFORMATION, and God is the same God today as He was in the 16th century. Granted. But there is a most significant difference! The men of that time - Luther, Calvin, Farel, Bucer, Melancthon, and their Huguenot followers such as Amyraut, Jean Dialle, Claude Brousson, young Fulchran Rey, etc, - were men of true grit, men of courage, men of determination, men utterly committed to the reforming cause, whereas today, like our greedy politicians, many ministers really do count the cost of reform within the church, could not bear it financially and would dislike the lack of prestige and position that being a 'minister of religion' gives, and they decide not to go down that road.
And who suffers? The church of Jesus Christ on earth. No, we do not have the men of conviction and courage that mainland Europe had 500 years ago.
I ask again, as I did before, where are the men of truly reforming zeal, who care about Christ's body on earth, and who desire her to be perfected, that is, mature Bible-believing, Gospel preaching churches? Where are the reformers who have a greater eye to the final Judgement of the last day, than they do to temporal comforts? Is there anyone out there who cares about the theological and spiritual health of the church? Where are they? And why won't they come forward?
I know how costly being a reformer within a mixed and compromised denomination is, not only for myself but for my family also. This is not a decision to be taken lightly, given the track record of the church authorities (but there again, they are no different from how their predecessors behaved in the 16th century).
Let the reform of the Protestant churches begin!
That said, I must add a few other points. The twelve qualifications of an orangeman demand that only genuine Christians are admitted to membership. What we have instead is a professedly evangelical and reformed institution that has in its membership many who hold to the teachings of Roman Catholicism, especially with regard to the way of salvation.
Ask your average Orangeman what a Christian is, and how does one become a Christian, and you'll get a variety of answers: be a good neighbour, keep the law, do good, go to your church, support your church, give to the needy, attend the sacraments, be religious in your observances, etc. Becoming a Christian, for many Orangemen, happens when you are baptised (they probably use the Roman Catholic term 'christened'), and becoming a Christian continued when you take 'holy communion.' Being a good Protestant means submission to the Bishop, believing whatever the church tells you, going to the Twelfth each year, flying your union flag, and joining the Orange Order.
I ask you: Is that biblical Protestantism or unadulterated Romanism? Well taught Christians will answer that it is the latter.
What is a Christian in the biblical sense? He is someone, who having a true sense of his lostness in sin before a holy God, flees in faith and repentance to Christ, just as he is, to the only Saviour of mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ. He is someone who loves Christ before and above all others, and seeks to glorify Him by the way he lives his life. He is a dedicated member of his local reformed and biblical church, and who is in regular attendance at its ordinances. He seeks to bear witness to God's saving grace in Christ Jesus, has a zeal for evangelism and world mission, and lives as holy a life that it is possible for a redeemed sinner to live. He is a gracious and kindly man who is not afraid to shout when his Master and His cause are attacked. He has been born again from above, converted, delivered from darkness and death and brought into light and newness of life, redeemed by the precious blood of Christ, having been raised together with Christ. His love for Christ is real, and not just mere empty words.
That's what a true Christian really is. It is also what a true Orangeman really is.
The authentically Calvinistic, or Amyraldian, qualifications are to be welcomed, and they look good on paper. Jesus Christ is described as "the Saviour of mankind," which salvation is received by faith in the "only Mediator" there is between God and men. This begs the obvious question: why aren't only those who have received Jesus Christ by faith received into the Order's membership? If men who manifestly do not meet the membership qualifications are admitted into membership of this institution, then it ought not to surprise anyone that the trends within the Order are towards a weakening of its Christian witness. Indeed, why should we expect Christian behaviour from unregenerate people? To do so is to ask the impossible and is a denial of the Christian faith.
As a fraternal institution that carries no biblical mandate, I believe that genuinely concerned Reformed evangelical ministers within that body and who minister in seriously compromised, even apostate, denominations, ought to give their efforts to reforming what is biblically warranted, rather than dissipating their efforts on reforming something that is of no consequence one way or the other?
That the churches need urgent and radical reformation is an issue that hardly needs to be raised. Indeed, those more objective observers can see only too clearly that this is the case. Few within the churches see this in such a way that motivates them to commence the work of reformation within their own ecclesiastical bodies.
The sceptic within me will explain this as follows: to seek the reform of the Orange Order will not cost them their jobs, salaries, homes or pensions, if the reform does not work. However, if they are of truly reforming spirits and are employed by a church body, which has 'the power of life and death' over its employees, if the reform goes wrong, they will be left out in the street without home or income, not to mention the pension? The answer is YES; and that is too great a price to pay for faithfulness to Christ's Gospel.
So I believe that these good Christian brothers are taking the safe option, showing that they care more for what God has not ordained than they do for what he has ordained. This is surely a very sad situation to be in.
But if the church as visible is not in conformity to the Word of God in its organisation and doctrine - both of which must go together - then trying to conform an organisation that professes to be Protestant but has within it, and right at the very top, people who hold to the beliefs of Roman Catholicism, then the task is futile. I know some might object that that was the situation at the REFORMATION, and God is the same God today as He was in the 16th century. Granted. But there is a most significant difference! The men of that time - Luther, Calvin, Farel, Bucer, Melancthon, and their Huguenot followers such as Amyraut, Jean Dialle, Claude Brousson, young Fulchran Rey, etc, - were men of true grit, men of courage, men of determination, men utterly committed to the reforming cause, whereas today, like our greedy politicians, many ministers really do count the cost of reform within the church, could not bear it financially and would dislike the lack of prestige and position that being a 'minister of religion' gives, and they decide not to go down that road.
And who suffers? The church of Jesus Christ on earth. No, we do not have the men of conviction and courage that mainland Europe had 500 years ago.
I ask again, as I did before, where are the men of truly reforming zeal, who care about Christ's body on earth, and who desire her to be perfected, that is, mature Bible-believing, Gospel preaching churches? Where are the reformers who have a greater eye to the final Judgement of the last day, than they do to temporal comforts? Is there anyone out there who cares about the theological and spiritual health of the church? Where are they? And why won't they come forward?
I know how costly being a reformer within a mixed and compromised denomination is, not only for myself but for my family also. This is not a decision to be taken lightly, given the track record of the church authorities (but there again, they are no different from how their predecessors behaved in the 16th century).
Let the reform of the Protestant churches begin!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)