Casual Christianity?

Does such a thing exist?  Well, sadly, it does; and is growing by the day.  It is the kind of Christianity that takes everything with decreasing seriousness so that those involved in this religion have a 'good time.'  Our appearance in the Lord's house is like going to the seaside for the afternoon.  Our presentation in the pulpit is akin to going to a sporting event.  The language we use is all lovey-dovey, and the way we present ourselves before the Lord is as casual as going to the cinema.

Christian faith seems for a great many professors of religion to be no more than an add-on, similar to the kind of thing you can buy for your mobile phone.  You add this religion on to your otherwise very full life without allowing it to push out the more important things in your life.  It's another accessory like ear-rings, and flesh piercing things.

It's an evangelical app.  It is something you take up that authenticates you as a believer, and keeps you in with the right people. 

But it must never become so big a thing that it demands attendance at both services on a Sunday, or that you are a Christian at work as well as at church.  It must not be allowed to affect how you do your business, for example.  Once that begins to happen, religion is becoming fanatical; and we can't have that, can we?

No, what is wanted and desired today is a Christianity that is casual enough to look like the real thing yet sufficiently informal to allow you to so as you please.

But is that biblical Christianity?

Five Points About Calvin's Atonement Teaching.

I think it is important that we do not deliberately misunderstand the great Geneva Reformer, John Calvin (1509-1564).  So let me propose these five points to help you understand him better with regard to his thinking on the extent of the atonement, which I came across yesterday (25th August, 2012).


1.  The medieval scholastics, almost to a man, believed in a limited atonement but John Calvin was not impressed either with them or with their theological beliefs which tried to present that particular teaching.

2.  When Calvin was replying to the Council of Trent doctrines, it is very interesting to note, and this is very important, that he refuted every proposition one by one until he came to the point that taught that Christ died for all men.  Each proposition was taken to task by this able biblical theologian but on this one he had no comment to make whatever.  Some might say that this means that he neither agreed nor disagreed with this point; but that is to do despite to the great Calvin's ability to argue his case coherently.  This ought to make limited atonement people question and reconsider their position.  That Calvin taught a universal redemption is beyond question, except by those whose minds are closed to the data.

3.  Calvin's view that Christ is the 'mirror' of our election quite definitely adds up if Christ died for all.

4.  On many occasions, Calvin equates "many" with "all."  This was a conscious departure from those such as Luther who equated "many" with the "elect."

5.  Calvin's interpretation of Heb.9:15 is that the "called" does not refer to the "elect."  This was another departure for Calvin from the classic 'Calvinists' who interpreted it differently from the Reformer.

Calvin's teaching on universal redemption was carefully considered and expressed by this great theological mind to teach the essential nature and design of the atonement. 

May I ask you to check up these facts as presented for yourself.  Do not take my word for it; go straight "to the horse's mouth."  Read Calvin for yourself, and don't accept blindly what Calvinists teach about the Reformer's theology.  This is essential for those who are concerned about understanding what the Bible has to teach about the Gospel.  Evangelists also need to understand this central teaching.

UPDATE: Norwich City Council v. Norwich Reformed Church

As I have informed you over recent weeks, it is with great regret that we have to report that both the Christian Institute and the Christian Legal Centre have disappointed us. The former were not wholeheartedly in favour of the contents of my leaflet WHY NOT ISLAM and, to date, after some legal advice was given, silence has prevailed for several weeks. While the CLC spoke approvingly of the leaflet, the refusal of the Daily Telegraph (with whom the CLC has a media connection) ‘to run with our story’ (on account of ‘my strong views’) delayed any real commitment to our case, until the three-month deadline for mounting a challenge to NCC eventually expired. Sadly, these two organizations have some flaws in their style of operating, which is highly regrettable. This means that we had no option but happily to appeal to the Court of Heaven! As you all know, we have accordingly been praying regularly. Positive interest currently being shown in our case by a member of NCC (who knew nothing of our situation until very recently), might well be the LORD’s answer to our prayers. We wait in faith and pray on...
 

Dr Alan C. Clifford

Tomorrow - C. H. Spurgeon

“Boast not thyself of tomorrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth.” Proverbs 27:1

Suggested Further Reading: Proverbs 31:10-25

On one occasion I pleaded for a friendly society, and not knowing a more appropriate text, I selected this, “Take no thought for the morrow, for tomorrow shall take thought for the things of itself.” Some of my hearers, when I announced my text, feared the principle of it was altogether hostile to anything like an insurance, or providing for the future, but I just showed them that it was not, as I looked upon it. It is a positive command that we are to take no anxious thought concerning tomorrow. Now, how can I do that? How can I put myself into such a position that I can carry out this commandment of taking no thought for the morrow? If I were a man struggling in life, and had it in my power to insure for something which would take care of wife and family in after days, if I did not do it, you might preach to me for all eternity about not taking thought for the morrow; but I could not help doing it, when I saw those I loved around me unprovided for. Let it be in God’s word, I could not practise it; I should still be at some time or other taking thought for the morrow. But let me go to one of the many excellent institutions which exist, and let me see that all is provided for, I come home and say, “Now, I know how to practise Christ’s command of taking no thought for the morrow; I pay the policy-money once a year, and I take no further thought about it, for I have no occasion to do so now, and have obeyed the very spirit and letter of Christ’s command.” Our Lord meant that we were to get rid of cares.
For meditation: Are you playing your part to provide practically for the members of your family? (1 Timothy 3:4-5, 12; 5:4,16). If not, perhaps you should start getting anxious (1 Timothy 5:8).
Sermon no. 94
25 August (1856)

Activity - a Smokescreen?

We have spoken about the 'barrenness of a busy life.'  How awfully true this is.

But let me put this another way:

"activity can be a smokescreen for disobedience."

Now what do you think about that!  Christian ministers like to boast about how busy they are, and they probably are very busy people.  What do ministers do about the command, BE STILL?  They live to be busy, and to be seen to be busy.  Business is a great ploy to keep a minister from doing the work he has been called by God to do.  Activism destroys ministries and churches.  It sends Christians down a one way street.  Devotion to Christ? - We've no time for that sort of thing.  We're too busy.  We have too many meetings to go to, too many committees to attend, too many conferences and seminars to participate in. 

So why do we go to all things events?  Because it makes us feel important, indispensable to the Kingdom of God.  It is how we achieve significance, as they say. 

But is our activity really a smokescreen for personal and habitual disobedience to God's revealed will in Scripture?  Do those whose calling it is to minister the Word of God practice what they preach to others?  How do husbands demonstrate their love for the wife and children when they are hardly ever there to show that love?  Is their activity really a smokescreen for disobedience?

How much of your activity can be done without?  Really done without.  How much of it is essential to the work of the ministry? 

Let every man examine himself to see whether he be in the faith.

Noteless Sermons

Listen to these strong words from Prof. Robert Lewis Dabney:

Reading a manuscript to the people can never, with any justice, be termed preaching.... In the delivery of the sermon there can be no exception in favor of the mere reader. How can he whose eyes are fixed upon the paper before him, who performs the mechanical task of reciting the very words inscribed upon it, have the inflections, the emphasis, the look, the gesture, the flexibility, the fire, or oratorical actions? Mere reading, then, should be sternly banished from the pulpit, except in those rare cases in which the didactic purpose supersedes the rhetorical, and exact verbal accuracy is more essential than eloquence.

I have said it often, there are way too many "essay readers" in Christian pulpits that have been dedicated for the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Why do we need a trained and ordained man to read out an essay?  Can such productions not be bought off the Internet and someone asked to read it out?

But whatever you might call that, it's certainly not preaching.  A preacher whose eyes are fixed on a manuscript cannot have any meaningful eye contact with those to whom he is preaching.  When we communicate with another person, we look at their eyes.  Preaching is communication par excellence.  To communicate from a pulpit, you need to see the whites of your congregation's eyes and they need to see the white of yours.  

I know that someone will cite Jonathan Edwards who is believed to have read his manuscript under candle-light and many were struck down, convicted of their sin and savingly converted to Christ.  But do exceptions prove rules?  Hardly.

Dabney is correct - "mere reading should be sternly banished from the pulpit" as a rule.

The Plantation of Ulster - Christian Perspective

The next installment in the History of Ireland series of books, written from a Christian and theological perspective, has just been published on Smashwords.

This book deals with the Plantation of Ulster, and brings out several theological principles that are most encouraging for the Christian reader.

It clears up and answers some of the myths generated by those who oppose Northen Ireland's link with Britain and who are trying to re-write Irish history with a view to justifing the terrorist campaign that they perpetrated for the past four decades. 

Who were the original planters in Ulster? 

Were the native Irish driven off their lands, as is supposed?  

Were the planters only Protestants? 

Read this new book and find out for yourself the truth of the matter, and much, much more.