It's sad, but true! Evangelicals within the mainstream denominations are leading the way to Rome! Not only is this trend seen in the way 'reformed' ministers, in administering the sacrament of baptism to covenant infants, actually take these infants away from the father into his own arms, thus sending out the message that it is the church that is ultimately responsible for the child's salvation, and is essentially a priestly action, it is also seen in another sphere.
Now, the other New Testament sacrament, the Lord's Supper, is being treated in the same Romanising manner. Just recently, I witnessed this with my own eyes. Not that many, or any, others noticed this, but I certainly did. At the normal Sunday services, you will see elders coming to the worship of Almighty God dressed like 'tramps,' the evangelical type, of course, in denim jeans, open necked shirts, trainers, sportsy dress; but when it comes to the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, my, they present themselves appropriately - their good suits on, shirt and tie, and every bit the Christian leader. Indeed, they would never dream of presenting at school in such a tawdry fashion. These professionals obviously have a higher respect for their employers and professions than they do for God and His house!
Now why do they do this sort of thing? True, its not what is on the outside, but what's in the heart, that matters. That point is willingly granted. But what does it say about the elevated position these men give to the Lord's Supper? It says that they believe that Sacrament Sunday is different from the other Sundays because the Lord's Supper is being taken. In their minds, there is an elevation of this sacrament above the preaching of the Gospel which is the focus of every other service. It might even be the Presbyterian's way of "elevating the host" as is done within Romanism in all its forms. But thankfully not all Presbyterians do this - they are much better taught than that!
It is high time for the reformed church in this decadent age, to take a long hard look at what it is doing. In fact, it must take a long hard look through the lens of Scripture, at what the Church of Jesus Christ really is, for that knowledge has long since been lost within the churches. Because she does not know accurately what she is, anything goes. Because her true nature is misunderstood, her practice follows as does the night the day. What is believed by the church about the church cannot be divorced from how the church conducts her affairs. If she is viewed as a fun-fair, then she will run her entire life trying her best to attract the world into her midst using worldly means. If she sees herself as a museum, then nothing will be changed over the rolling centuries. But if she sees herself as the Body of Christ in this world, then everything about her will reflect this exalted position. If she orders her life according to the teaching of the Scriptures, then she will be transformed, becoming what God intended her to be, and very different from what she has become in the 21st century.
There are lessons to be learned, and learned urgently, if she is to hear that "Well done, good and faithful servant," from the Lord she professes to serve.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
The Church and Mission.
Evangelical churches are supposed to be the most missionary-minded of all churches. They give well to missionary endeavour, send out workers to work in the harvest field of the world, pray for missionaries and support their work.
But charity begins at home – at least that’s what we have been told! Why is it then that evangelical churches prefer the foreign mission work to the mission field that is right on their doorsteps? Is it because there is more kudos, more romance, more spiritual brownie points, with the overseas work than there is with more locally-based mission?
Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose there are two really thriving evangelical congregations with an admirable missionary interest and track record that are located beside two small struggling congregations within the same denomination. Imagine the prestige associated with the bigger congregations, and the spiritual poverty of the two smaller ones. This is nothing other than a mission-field on the very doorstep, but no one wants to even admit it is there! They send their money and their personnel to fields far away, but would never even consider sending their best people to join these two struggling and neighbouring congregations, or even re-aligning the congregational unions so that the stronger could help the weaker – a Presbyterian principle.
Why this neglect? Is it because there are too many exaggerated egos in the big churches to care for the smaller ones? Do the bigger churches prefer to be “as ease in Zion,” as Amos put it, rather than get their hands dirty trying to build up and strengthen the weaker churches? Is personal comfort to be preferred to the arduous task of spreading the everlasting Gospel amongst needy people? Or is the spread of the Gospel not that important after all?
But charity begins at home – at least that’s what we have been told! Why is it then that evangelical churches prefer the foreign mission work to the mission field that is right on their doorsteps? Is it because there is more kudos, more romance, more spiritual brownie points, with the overseas work than there is with more locally-based mission?
Let me give an example of what I mean. Suppose there are two really thriving evangelical congregations with an admirable missionary interest and track record that are located beside two small struggling congregations within the same denomination. Imagine the prestige associated with the bigger congregations, and the spiritual poverty of the two smaller ones. This is nothing other than a mission-field on the very doorstep, but no one wants to even admit it is there! They send their money and their personnel to fields far away, but would never even consider sending their best people to join these two struggling and neighbouring congregations, or even re-aligning the congregational unions so that the stronger could help the weaker – a Presbyterian principle.
Why this neglect? Is it because there are too many exaggerated egos in the big churches to care for the smaller ones? Do the bigger churches prefer to be “as ease in Zion,” as Amos put it, rather than get their hands dirty trying to build up and strengthen the weaker churches? Is personal comfort to be preferred to the arduous task of spreading the everlasting Gospel amongst needy people? Or is the spread of the Gospel not that important after all?
That Abusive Mother Church!
Augustine rightly said that “no one can have God as his Father who does not also have the church as his mother.” The principle is sound. The Church, which He purchased with the blood of Christ, is His treasured possession. Christ loves her, and gave Himself for her. His purpose: to present her as a spotless Bride to the Father. And her role on earth: to bring glory to her Husband, to nurture, feed, encourage, strengthen, discipline, care for, those to whom the Father has given new life. She is to be tender with her children, discipline them when necessary, always love and care for them, and act for their best interests.
So far so good. But when that ‘mother’ turns out to be abusive, uncaring, unloving; when she becomes unfaithful to her Husband and flirts with other gods, when she becomes drunk with notions of her own self-importance, blinded by power and pounds, when she becomes the end of all things, she then has departed from her high calling – to be the Bride of Christ, and to submit to His will in all things. When that mother turns from and against the very children her Husband gave to her, and treats them in a most abusive manner, the entire scenario has changed drastically. The sad reality is that it is the blood-bought church of Christ that behaves in this despicable way!
Yet when preachers, who are big on ‘theory,’ tell their congregations that it is their Christian duty to commit to ‘mother church’ as a covenant obligation, regardless of her track record, then they have gone too far. (I wonder how this approach differs from that used by the Baptists to convince new converts to undergo their particular form of baptism? If they are to demonstrate their obedience to Christ, then they have to be baptised in our way). In the outside world, if anyone suggested that children commit to a mother who has proved to be abusive towards her children, they would be roundly turned upon, and let know what reasonable people think about such a suggestion.
Further, before they agree to becoming church members, Christians must be told who and what the leaders, the elders, are. Before they join such a church, they must make it their business to discover what example the leaders set, how diligent they are at church services, prayer meetings, etc, whether or not they are truly spiritually men who are well-versed in the theology of the Scriptures and of the church, whether or not they have true pastoral hearts, what their record on church discipline is, whether they do lead in the affairs of the church or is their leadership a form of laisez faire leadership (if it brings the people in and keeps the church coffers filled, then who cares what God expects of His church), whether they are first and foremost ‘firm’s men,’ whether they possess the discernment that is desired in holders of this office; and so on. These and related questions must be asked and answered satisfactorily before any commitment is given to any church.
Christians must also be told in great detail what submission to the leadership in the local church entails. Do the leaders (elders) to which submission is to be given have the confidence of the people who are expected to submit to them? Are the elders worthy of the submission of thinking Christian people? Are they true to traditional theological values and modes of worship, or have they ‘sold the pass’ and gone the way of almost all flesh within evangelicalism in all its forms?
It has been said that one of the reasons for membership of local fellowships is to show who the true Christians are. And church members and other Christians are expected to take this seriously! The truth is that all who are members of churches are not Christians, and many who attend worship regularly but who are Christians are not members. In my experience, my best Christian people were not officially church members – best attendees at worship, Bible studies, prayer meetings, etc, the best givers to church funds, and the most supportive of my ministry. On the other hand, the people who gave me least support, the worst attendees at ordinances – except the Lord’s Supper and insistent on the baptism of unbeliever’s infants – the poorest givers to church work, the people who made most demands, were most critical of my ministry, and yet who had a say in the direction of the church, were full unconverted members. Even some of the elders were not Christians, and some of those who were did not possess the qualifications for this high office.
Given that type of ‘mother’ church, plus her track record as an unrepentant abusive mother towards her children – a track record that is current, is it unreasonable to expect, especially those who have been abused by her, to commit to being members? Add to this the fact that she is truculently unrepentant of her evil actions, and committing to her is out of the question. Indeed, her ‘faithful servants’ give their tacit support to church abuse, by refusing to identify the problem and deal Christianly with it.
These ‘firm’s men’ are not good for the church or the Kingdom of God, and are, at the end of the day, merely playing at church. As for motherly care of her children? Well, that’s the biggest joke of all!
So far so good. But when that ‘mother’ turns out to be abusive, uncaring, unloving; when she becomes unfaithful to her Husband and flirts with other gods, when she becomes drunk with notions of her own self-importance, blinded by power and pounds, when she becomes the end of all things, she then has departed from her high calling – to be the Bride of Christ, and to submit to His will in all things. When that mother turns from and against the very children her Husband gave to her, and treats them in a most abusive manner, the entire scenario has changed drastically. The sad reality is that it is the blood-bought church of Christ that behaves in this despicable way!
Yet when preachers, who are big on ‘theory,’ tell their congregations that it is their Christian duty to commit to ‘mother church’ as a covenant obligation, regardless of her track record, then they have gone too far. (I wonder how this approach differs from that used by the Baptists to convince new converts to undergo their particular form of baptism? If they are to demonstrate their obedience to Christ, then they have to be baptised in our way). In the outside world, if anyone suggested that children commit to a mother who has proved to be abusive towards her children, they would be roundly turned upon, and let know what reasonable people think about such a suggestion.
Further, before they agree to becoming church members, Christians must be told who and what the leaders, the elders, are. Before they join such a church, they must make it their business to discover what example the leaders set, how diligent they are at church services, prayer meetings, etc, whether or not they are truly spiritually men who are well-versed in the theology of the Scriptures and of the church, whether or not they have true pastoral hearts, what their record on church discipline is, whether they do lead in the affairs of the church or is their leadership a form of laisez faire leadership (if it brings the people in and keeps the church coffers filled, then who cares what God expects of His church), whether they are first and foremost ‘firm’s men,’ whether they possess the discernment that is desired in holders of this office; and so on. These and related questions must be asked and answered satisfactorily before any commitment is given to any church.
Christians must also be told in great detail what submission to the leadership in the local church entails. Do the leaders (elders) to which submission is to be given have the confidence of the people who are expected to submit to them? Are the elders worthy of the submission of thinking Christian people? Are they true to traditional theological values and modes of worship, or have they ‘sold the pass’ and gone the way of almost all flesh within evangelicalism in all its forms?
It has been said that one of the reasons for membership of local fellowships is to show who the true Christians are. And church members and other Christians are expected to take this seriously! The truth is that all who are members of churches are not Christians, and many who attend worship regularly but who are Christians are not members. In my experience, my best Christian people were not officially church members – best attendees at worship, Bible studies, prayer meetings, etc, the best givers to church funds, and the most supportive of my ministry. On the other hand, the people who gave me least support, the worst attendees at ordinances – except the Lord’s Supper and insistent on the baptism of unbeliever’s infants – the poorest givers to church work, the people who made most demands, were most critical of my ministry, and yet who had a say in the direction of the church, were full unconverted members. Even some of the elders were not Christians, and some of those who were did not possess the qualifications for this high office.
Given that type of ‘mother’ church, plus her track record as an unrepentant abusive mother towards her children – a track record that is current, is it unreasonable to expect, especially those who have been abused by her, to commit to being members? Add to this the fact that she is truculently unrepentant of her evil actions, and committing to her is out of the question. Indeed, her ‘faithful servants’ give their tacit support to church abuse, by refusing to identify the problem and deal Christianly with it.
These ‘firm’s men’ are not good for the church or the Kingdom of God, and are, at the end of the day, merely playing at church. As for motherly care of her children? Well, that’s the biggest joke of all!
Saturday, 17 October 2009
Standing for truth!
It is quite interesting to note, even though few note it, that when truth is really promoted, whether in church or in society, it always provokes a reaction from the ungodly world. Take the preaching ministry, for example. When the Gospel is truly and relevantly preached, it stirs the ire of the ungodly. Indeed, it tackles the 'sacred cows' within that congregation or community. When 'sacred cows' are attacked by faithful preachers, they will know about it.
When a similar stand for truth and righteousness is taken in wider society, then we can but expect the self-same reaction. Truth always hurts! It irritates! It antagonises! If it doesn't, then one must ask if it is truth that is being promoted, or is it mere personal preferences that are being set forward, and not the revolutionary Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Martin Luther famously said that if a man preaches on every subject in the Bible, and refuses to deal with the openly defiant issues of the day, then he can hardly be said to be preaching the Gospel.
If Luther is correct, then much of what passes for Gospel preaching is nothing of the sort. The truth always hits home, even when it is preached or witnessed to in a manner that is less than perfect. It always provokes a reaction from the world; it never fails to stir Satan, the accuser of the brethren.
It is said of John Wesley that when he preached, there was either a revival or a riot! Sad that today, even amongst Wesley's adherents, there is little evidence of his spirit in those who love his name!
We must ask if it is possible for the Gospel to be preached when unbelievers love the preacher! When the world within the church says that the minister is very nice, then he most probably is not proclaiming Christ in all His fulness. If unbelievers can sit comfortably under his ministry, being "at ease in Zion," as Amos said, then something is tragically wrong.
Also, in society, when truth is treasured and precious, and this truth is promoted, then Satan is aroused and bears his evil teeth at those who stand for it.
What is important to know is that when the same truth is promoted, whether in the church or outside of it, the same Satan is provoked, and sets out to take action against those who are men and women of truth.
Christians must ask themselves if they are, in fact, living the truth, or are they just playing at being Christians? Do they know what true truth is (Schaeffer's phrase)? Are their lives based on true truth, or are they 'fly by nights' who have made a 'decision' about something religious, even evangelical, but are not quite sure what it was they decided?
Christians who have lost their saltiness are fit for nothing but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men. Beware the judgement of God!
When a similar stand for truth and righteousness is taken in wider society, then we can but expect the self-same reaction. Truth always hurts! It irritates! It antagonises! If it doesn't, then one must ask if it is truth that is being promoted, or is it mere personal preferences that are being set forward, and not the revolutionary Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Martin Luther famously said that if a man preaches on every subject in the Bible, and refuses to deal with the openly defiant issues of the day, then he can hardly be said to be preaching the Gospel.
If Luther is correct, then much of what passes for Gospel preaching is nothing of the sort. The truth always hits home, even when it is preached or witnessed to in a manner that is less than perfect. It always provokes a reaction from the world; it never fails to stir Satan, the accuser of the brethren.
It is said of John Wesley that when he preached, there was either a revival or a riot! Sad that today, even amongst Wesley's adherents, there is little evidence of his spirit in those who love his name!
We must ask if it is possible for the Gospel to be preached when unbelievers love the preacher! When the world within the church says that the minister is very nice, then he most probably is not proclaiming Christ in all His fulness. If unbelievers can sit comfortably under his ministry, being "at ease in Zion," as Amos said, then something is tragically wrong.
Also, in society, when truth is treasured and precious, and this truth is promoted, then Satan is aroused and bears his evil teeth at those who stand for it.
What is important to know is that when the same truth is promoted, whether in the church or outside of it, the same Satan is provoked, and sets out to take action against those who are men and women of truth.
Christians must ask themselves if they are, in fact, living the truth, or are they just playing at being Christians? Do they know what true truth is (Schaeffer's phrase)? Are their lives based on true truth, or are they 'fly by nights' who have made a 'decision' about something religious, even evangelical, but are not quite sure what it was they decided?
Christians who have lost their saltiness are fit for nothing but to be thrown out and trodden underfoot by men. Beware the judgement of God!
Friday, 16 October 2009
The Sentence of Death
Paul speaks about "the sentence of death" having been passed on him, and his fellow preachers. This was a reality with which he lived on a daily basis, and experienced several attempts to make this reality materialise.
When this happens to the modern day Christian, it is amazing how the amazing grace of God comes to his aid. To know the real presence of the Spirit of God in his heart, is an all too rare felt experience, but at times of extreme challenge, this becomes a reality. To be filled with a conscious sense of the peace of God, amidst hostile external circumstances, is proof of the nearness of God to His people at all times. To have his mind filled with the comforting words of Scripture, puts iron into his faith, and enables him to stand resolute and firm whatever the circumstances.
Then in the midst of disturbing circumstances, to have Ps.46 as the daily reading, with God saying to him through His word that "[He ]was/is their refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble," well, that crowns it, does it not? Even though the entire physical world goes into convulsions, yet God is still the same, and can comfort His people. To "be still and know that [He] is God," is a tonic that cures all spiritual doubts.
"How good is the God we adore! Our faithful, unchangeable Friend. His love is as great as His power, and knows neither measure nor end." That's our God! How truly wonderful He is! He's our Father, in Christ. He loves us with an everlasting love. He is still the Father Who cares.
When this happens to the modern day Christian, it is amazing how the amazing grace of God comes to his aid. To know the real presence of the Spirit of God in his heart, is an all too rare felt experience, but at times of extreme challenge, this becomes a reality. To be filled with a conscious sense of the peace of God, amidst hostile external circumstances, is proof of the nearness of God to His people at all times. To have his mind filled with the comforting words of Scripture, puts iron into his faith, and enables him to stand resolute and firm whatever the circumstances.
Then in the midst of disturbing circumstances, to have Ps.46 as the daily reading, with God saying to him through His word that "[He ]was/is their refuge and strength, a very present help in time of trouble," well, that crowns it, does it not? Even though the entire physical world goes into convulsions, yet God is still the same, and can comfort His people. To "be still and know that [He] is God," is a tonic that cures all spiritual doubts.
"How good is the God we adore! Our faithful, unchangeable Friend. His love is as great as His power, and knows neither measure nor end." That's our God! How truly wonderful He is! He's our Father, in Christ. He loves us with an everlasting love. He is still the Father Who cares.
Sunday, 11 October 2009
Why Reformation Tarries!
This is my 83rd posting on this blog, and as a result certain themes have appeared. The one over-arching theme to rise to the top is the critical need for another reformation within the church of Jesus Christ. The identification of this issue will be well received by those who look on the unreformed churches as less than they ought to be, and will give this a warm welcome.
But within the reformed churches, there might appear a very different response. As Reformed churches, they have made it! They are OK, and do not need reformation, and woe betide anyone who even suggests that the reformed churches, especially the purest forms of reformed ecclesiology, need to get back to the Scriptures, and reform their church life and practice according to the supreme rule of faith and worship.
However, the fact remains that all the reformed churches need to take a long and hard look at where they are, how they got there, and how they can return to the biblical position.
Hence, my decision to carry out a piece of research into this very issue. The following matters inter alia need to be addressed, for a start to be made in getting answers to the God-defying situation in many reformed churches today.
When this research has been written up, nothing you have written will be attributed to you - the default position - unless you have given specific instructions about this matter.
1. Name the top five reasons why the church of Jesus Christ needs to be reformed according to the Scriptures. Given reasons for your response.
2. Name the top five reasons why you think the church has got into its present position/condition. Give reasons...
3. What are the top five things/actions that need to be taken in order to initiate reform within the churches. Give reasons....
4. Who must take these actions? Give reasons...
5. Any other points you might want to make will be most welcome.
Please share this website with your sympathetic contacts, and ask for their participation in this research project.
Your assistance will be much appreciated.
But within the reformed churches, there might appear a very different response. As Reformed churches, they have made it! They are OK, and do not need reformation, and woe betide anyone who even suggests that the reformed churches, especially the purest forms of reformed ecclesiology, need to get back to the Scriptures, and reform their church life and practice according to the supreme rule of faith and worship.
However, the fact remains that all the reformed churches need to take a long and hard look at where they are, how they got there, and how they can return to the biblical position.
Hence, my decision to carry out a piece of research into this very issue. The following matters inter alia need to be addressed, for a start to be made in getting answers to the God-defying situation in many reformed churches today.
When this research has been written up, nothing you have written will be attributed to you - the default position - unless you have given specific instructions about this matter.
1. Name the top five reasons why the church of Jesus Christ needs to be reformed according to the Scriptures. Given reasons for your response.
2. Name the top five reasons why you think the church has got into its present position/condition. Give reasons...
3. What are the top five things/actions that need to be taken in order to initiate reform within the churches. Give reasons....
4. Who must take these actions? Give reasons...
5. Any other points you might want to make will be most welcome.
Please share this website with your sympathetic contacts, and ask for their participation in this research project.
Your assistance will be much appreciated.
Sunday, 27 September 2009
Evangelical Romanism and Baptism
The Christian church observes the two sacraments as set out in the Scriptures - Covenant Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These precious means of grace bring encouragement to God's people concerning His sovereign saving grace. The biblical sacrament of Covenant Baptism is especially precious, not only to Christian believers, but also to their children, who are also members of the covenant of grace, and who ought therefore to receive the sign and seal of that covenant.
Over the rolling centuries, these sacraments have been prostituted by the church, her officials and her members, turning them into saving ordinances. In other words, if a child is to be saved, it must, of necessity, be baptised, or christened as they prefer to put it. The child will only start to thrive after it has been 'done,' and baptism will keep it safe from harm and danger; indeed, only after it has been 'done' can it be called its name, for christening is essentially a naming ceremony carried out in a religious context by some kind of official religious priest.
The unreformed churches have a novel way of observing or administrating this sacrament. Because they see the church as being essential to salvation, the child is handed over to the officiating priest, who then 'does the business.' This unreformed practice evokes compliments towards the officiating priest, and gasps of 'awwwwwe' towards the young infant. It is a 'nice' ceremony, and one that courts popularity.
This obnoxious practice has also become part and parcel to the professing reformed churches, especially where liberal ministers minister. One liberal and ecumenical minister known to me used to take the child in his arms to perform the sacrament, then go for a walk up and down the aisles of the meetinghouse, displaying the little infant, to the obvious delight of those present.
Now one can understand such a minister carrying on like this, but one finds it even more baffling when a reformed evangelical minister carries on in this manner. I have witnessed this at church, when the priestly practice of the minister taking the child to be baptised from the father's arms, baptising the infant, then returning it to the father. The symbolism of this is the centrality of the church in the child's salvation, the priestly nature of this sacrament, the robbing the father of the privilege of presenting his child for covenant baptism, all in all making a theological switch away from the reformed and biblical understanding of this sacrament to a clearly Roman Catholic one.
The reformers would be horrified if they were here to see such a travesty of the sacrament. The Huguenot ministers did not take the children of believers in their arms, and in fact, did not touch them, because they believed that the rightness of 'sprinkling' of infants was a correct way of administering this sacrament. In addition, they did not want to give even the slightest impression or hint of priestly activity on his part.
But in today's decadent church, ministers wish to practice as unreformed priests, and this practice is becoming accepted and is increasingly prevalent in the evangelical and reformed churches.
Ministers who do this kind of thing must answer the following questions:
1. Where is the biblical mandate for this unreformed practice?
2. Who authorised this unreformed practice?
3. What is the theological significance of this unreformed practice?
4. What message is being conveyed to unthinking congregations and elders when such
an unreformed practice is being used?
5. How can this unreformed practice be justified from the practices of the true
reformed churches down through the centuries?
6. If this unreformed practice is allowed to go on, what will be the next
development of this sacrament?
These questions, amongst others, must not only be asked, but answered by those who not only use this unreformed practice, but support those who do. And the really subtle danger of this is that the church is being taken straight down the ecumenical road BY EVANGELICAL MINISTERS! Evangelical ministers are the vehicles that the church of Antichrist is using to do his nefarious work.
Oh, it is time for evangelicals to awake; they must shake themselves, and become wide-eyed and not miss what is going on under their noses. How will these men answer before Almighty God for the Romanisation of their churches? Ignorance of the law is no appeal in any court, nor is ignorance of what God requires of His church's ordained servants.
Evangelicalism is a convenient cloak under which this may be done. Yes, Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open. Elders, if you permit this unreformed practice to continue, you are sinning with your eyes wide open. What will be your answer on that dread day? You cannot say you did not know, because it is your responsibility as elders to become conversant with what your Lord wants for His church.
But evangelicals doing the work of the ecumenicals in Romanising the Protestant churches is perhaps the Satan's most crafty and efficient move. Who will suspect a good evangelical minister of Romanising the church? The church establishment will be delighted at an evangelical doing this work, because that will keep the reformers within the churches - if there are any left - at bay.
But the very thought of this happening, the very thought of Christian people being taken for a ride, being deceived by the clever use of language, is most disturbing. Oh church of Christ, AWAKE!
Over the rolling centuries, these sacraments have been prostituted by the church, her officials and her members, turning them into saving ordinances. In other words, if a child is to be saved, it must, of necessity, be baptised, or christened as they prefer to put it. The child will only start to thrive after it has been 'done,' and baptism will keep it safe from harm and danger; indeed, only after it has been 'done' can it be called its name, for christening is essentially a naming ceremony carried out in a religious context by some kind of official religious priest.
The unreformed churches have a novel way of observing or administrating this sacrament. Because they see the church as being essential to salvation, the child is handed over to the officiating priest, who then 'does the business.' This unreformed practice evokes compliments towards the officiating priest, and gasps of 'awwwwwe' towards the young infant. It is a 'nice' ceremony, and one that courts popularity.
This obnoxious practice has also become part and parcel to the professing reformed churches, especially where liberal ministers minister. One liberal and ecumenical minister known to me used to take the child in his arms to perform the sacrament, then go for a walk up and down the aisles of the meetinghouse, displaying the little infant, to the obvious delight of those present.
Now one can understand such a minister carrying on like this, but one finds it even more baffling when a reformed evangelical minister carries on in this manner. I have witnessed this at church, when the priestly practice of the minister taking the child to be baptised from the father's arms, baptising the infant, then returning it to the father. The symbolism of this is the centrality of the church in the child's salvation, the priestly nature of this sacrament, the robbing the father of the privilege of presenting his child for covenant baptism, all in all making a theological switch away from the reformed and biblical understanding of this sacrament to a clearly Roman Catholic one.
The reformers would be horrified if they were here to see such a travesty of the sacrament. The Huguenot ministers did not take the children of believers in their arms, and in fact, did not touch them, because they believed that the rightness of 'sprinkling' of infants was a correct way of administering this sacrament. In addition, they did not want to give even the slightest impression or hint of priestly activity on his part.
But in today's decadent church, ministers wish to practice as unreformed priests, and this practice is becoming accepted and is increasingly prevalent in the evangelical and reformed churches.
Ministers who do this kind of thing must answer the following questions:
1. Where is the biblical mandate for this unreformed practice?
2. Who authorised this unreformed practice?
3. What is the theological significance of this unreformed practice?
4. What message is being conveyed to unthinking congregations and elders when such
an unreformed practice is being used?
5. How can this unreformed practice be justified from the practices of the true
reformed churches down through the centuries?
6. If this unreformed practice is allowed to go on, what will be the next
development of this sacrament?
These questions, amongst others, must not only be asked, but answered by those who not only use this unreformed practice, but support those who do. And the really subtle danger of this is that the church is being taken straight down the ecumenical road BY EVANGELICAL MINISTERS! Evangelical ministers are the vehicles that the church of Antichrist is using to do his nefarious work.
Oh, it is time for evangelicals to awake; they must shake themselves, and become wide-eyed and not miss what is going on under their noses. How will these men answer before Almighty God for the Romanisation of their churches? Ignorance of the law is no appeal in any court, nor is ignorance of what God requires of His church's ordained servants.
Evangelicalism is a convenient cloak under which this may be done. Yes, Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam sinned with his eyes wide open. Elders, if you permit this unreformed practice to continue, you are sinning with your eyes wide open. What will be your answer on that dread day? You cannot say you did not know, because it is your responsibility as elders to become conversant with what your Lord wants for His church.
But evangelicals doing the work of the ecumenicals in Romanising the Protestant churches is perhaps the Satan's most crafty and efficient move. Who will suspect a good evangelical minister of Romanising the church? The church establishment will be delighted at an evangelical doing this work, because that will keep the reformers within the churches - if there are any left - at bay.
But the very thought of this happening, the very thought of Christian people being taken for a ride, being deceived by the clever use of language, is most disturbing. Oh church of Christ, AWAKE!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)