How pleasing it is to see that the Christian nurse, Miss Petrie, has been re-instated to her position after the controversy that was created when he asked a patient if she could pray with and for her!
Thank God for His graciousness in this situation, and for honouring her as she honoured Him.
Yet how sad it is that the Christian church has even less Christian grace than a national health service office, for it will not restore those servants of Christ who, in her eyes, transgressed against her. Isn't it a living rebuke to the church that a secular institution demonstrates Christian grace when it realised that it did wrong? The Christian Church is the one institution that ought to be setting the example in being gracious and generous to those who stepped out of line, yet she is so puffed up by her own self-importance that this becomes an impossibility for her. The kindness and generosity of spirit in those health service officials is delightful to see.
But, when the Christian church has the opportunity to demonstrate her allegiance to Jesus Christ, she fails and falters badly. When she is confronted with her abysmal failure to live Christ before a watching world, she reverts to self-defence and character assassination. And in defending herself, not only is she not following her Lord's example, she is doing what is essentially indefensible.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Theological Preaching
My studies into DMLJ's theology of the atonement are most enlightening, and will cause many men in the reformed world to do to the Doctor what they did to Dr R. T. Kendall, once they really understand his doctrine of the atonement - treat him as a pariah. While DMLJ had his faults - his semi-baptistic stance, his rank independence, his refusal to confront John Stott in 1966 on the Puritan understanding of Anglicanism, his fraternising with charismaticism, et al, he still has much vital material to teach us on the nature and message of the Gospel. He knew the Gospel in a way that enabled him to preach it mightily and faithfully, and without having to do damage to the vocabulary of Scripture. He had discovered the only hermeneutic that I know of that allows a preacher to treat the Scripture as it stands and without having to squeeze it through some dogmatic screen. That hermeneutic is authentic Calvinism, or to use a theological swear word in ultra-reformed circles, Amyraldianism. Compare it with Owenism, and you'll find the preacher having to 're-write' the Scripture, or 'explain it away,' when it comes to dealing with the Gospel texts that are universalistic in their language.
I digress from my original purpose in writing to you, but writing to you stimulates my theological juices, knowing that you are a man who also wants to allow Scripture to speak its own saving, sanctifying and God-glorifying message.
By the way, if you have this - I know you have a wealth of good books - but if you have accounts of the conversion experience of Christians under John Owen's preaching, would you let me know. I would very much like to read the testimonies of his converts.
I digress from my original purpose in writing to you, but writing to you stimulates my theological juices, knowing that you are a man who also wants to allow Scripture to speak its own saving, sanctifying and God-glorifying message.
By the way, if you have this - I know you have a wealth of good books - but if you have accounts of the conversion experience of Christians under John Owen's preaching, would you let me know. I would very much like to read the testimonies of his converts.
Let us Worship God.
These are amongst the first words you should hear when you go to worship the sovereign God. This majestic 'call to worship' summons the congregation to do that which God demands of His creation (Ps.100:1), and especially of His people. It is God's call to all men to bow before the majesty of the great God. It is that which requires us to give God His rightful place in our worship and in our lives. It is surely the most solemn call that any man can hear.
When you think about it, the call to worship is the end goal for evangelism. David Brainard, that great missionary to the North American Indians about 250 years ago, said that what he aimed at in his evangelism was to get the people to "sing to God." The worship of God's pure and holy Name is the goal of evangelism.
Now it is strange, is it not, that in many evangelical, or should I say, evangelistic, churches, not only is there no clear summons to worship God, but even when it is implied, for the minister to then decide, on his own whims, to order half of the congregation NOT to worship God. You know how it goes; when you are singing your heart out to the great God of salvation and revival, the preacher interjects and says, "Men only for this verse," and then later, "Ladies only."
I must say that if I find this grossly insulting, how must not God feel about it. If we are gathered in God's house for the express purpose of worshipping His Name, what right has any man to stop half the congregation worshipping the Lord? What right has a minister to tell people on the basis of their gender that they are not to sing praise to God in this verse? Are they paving the way for the day when Christians will not be permitted to worship the Lord at any time? Do they know something that the rest of us do not know? Why are they doing this? What benefits ascend to God when this is practised?
Evangelicalism must surely take a long and serious look at what the Scriptures teach about how God is to be worshipped. IF He tells us in His word what he wants from us, who are we to change it? Who are we to decide what we will offer to God as worship? Remember how He rejected many contemporising practices in the OT, and described it as "offering strange fire to the Lord."
And we expect God to move amongst us in revival power and grace.
Let me mention another aberration of God's worship. When the minister says, "Let us worship God as we give to Him our tithes and our offerings." I don't know how these words are understood in your church, but in the churches that I know best, they are interpreted to mean, "Now is a great time to have a chat with the person sitting beside me." Have you noticed that? The minister calls us to worship God in this particular way (the offering), and we do the very opposite, while while putting our money on the plate. What the minister says is not really intended to be done - it a time to chat, or to check your mobile for messages, or to send a text to your friend sitting across the church from you, and so on. Worshipping God.
And we still think that we are on the way to revival! As I see it, the fact that we are prepared to play fast and loose with the worship of God is a sure sign, not that God is blessing us, but that the church needs revival urgently. If only we were to read the OT with open minds and hungry hearts, we would see just how far we have deserted the Lord's way regarding how He is to be worshipped.
My response? May the Lord have mercy on us, and bring us back again into the true paths, and may He restore to us that sense of His holy presence as we meet in His Kingly Name.
When you think about it, the call to worship is the end goal for evangelism. David Brainard, that great missionary to the North American Indians about 250 years ago, said that what he aimed at in his evangelism was to get the people to "sing to God." The worship of God's pure and holy Name is the goal of evangelism.
Now it is strange, is it not, that in many evangelical, or should I say, evangelistic, churches, not only is there no clear summons to worship God, but even when it is implied, for the minister to then decide, on his own whims, to order half of the congregation NOT to worship God. You know how it goes; when you are singing your heart out to the great God of salvation and revival, the preacher interjects and says, "Men only for this verse," and then later, "Ladies only."
I must say that if I find this grossly insulting, how must not God feel about it. If we are gathered in God's house for the express purpose of worshipping His Name, what right has any man to stop half the congregation worshipping the Lord? What right has a minister to tell people on the basis of their gender that they are not to sing praise to God in this verse? Are they paving the way for the day when Christians will not be permitted to worship the Lord at any time? Do they know something that the rest of us do not know? Why are they doing this? What benefits ascend to God when this is practised?
Evangelicalism must surely take a long and serious look at what the Scriptures teach about how God is to be worshipped. IF He tells us in His word what he wants from us, who are we to change it? Who are we to decide what we will offer to God as worship? Remember how He rejected many contemporising practices in the OT, and described it as "offering strange fire to the Lord."
And we expect God to move amongst us in revival power and grace.
Let me mention another aberration of God's worship. When the minister says, "Let us worship God as we give to Him our tithes and our offerings." I don't know how these words are understood in your church, but in the churches that I know best, they are interpreted to mean, "Now is a great time to have a chat with the person sitting beside me." Have you noticed that? The minister calls us to worship God in this particular way (the offering), and we do the very opposite, while while putting our money on the plate. What the minister says is not really intended to be done - it a time to chat, or to check your mobile for messages, or to send a text to your friend sitting across the church from you, and so on. Worshipping God.
And we still think that we are on the way to revival! As I see it, the fact that we are prepared to play fast and loose with the worship of God is a sure sign, not that God is blessing us, but that the church needs revival urgently. If only we were to read the OT with open minds and hungry hearts, we would see just how far we have deserted the Lord's way regarding how He is to be worshipped.
My response? May the Lord have mercy on us, and bring us back again into the true paths, and may He restore to us that sense of His holy presence as we meet in His Kingly Name.
Monday, 2 February 2009
God's Mighty Gospel
Last night, I had the immense privilege of preaching at the Christian Workers Union meeting in Magherafelt. It was a tremendous service, and we did not only assume that the Lord was present, we knew He was there. He was very gracious. While we "walk by faith, not by sight," we did not simply believe that He was really present by His Spirit, we felt His closeness, we sensed that nearness of God right throughout the meeting, the attention of the listeners was rapt, and the freedom in preaching was sweet. Yes, I had prepared well, and went armed with my notes, but very seldom referred to them. I preached for an hour, and no one felt the time passing. It was as if "heaven came down and glory filled the room." God was so good to us because God is so good.
Some of the members of my former congregations in Tobermore and Draperstown attended the service, and said it was like old times, commended me for the 'strong message' that I brought, and thanked me so warmly for what I had said. One friend said that that was the kind of preaching we should still be getting in church - the reference being to my being sacked by PCI for preaching the same kind of truthful, clear and passionate sermon, thus depriving them of my ministry.
The organisers said that they would have me back again to preach.
It was noteworthy that two elders (friends) from Union Road were also present, and one thanked me for being there, and the other said I had given him much to think about.
I was trying to address the question, Why, if "the Gospel of Christ ... is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes," was its power not being felt, and experienced in the numerous evangelistic services that are held throughout our country?
Answer: Preachers are preaching to people who do not feel their need of Christ; preachers have lost their confidence in the Gospel as "the power of God unto salvation...," therefore have resorted to using the many "obstacles" that have been built up around church life, and are presenting a message that is essentially parallel to Roman Catholicism's "faith+" message, only for evangelicals it is a "gospel+" message - Gospel + testimonies, Gospel + never-ending singing of often silly ditties, Gospel + jokes and frivolity and flippancy - to get people relaxed, Gospel + the active involvement of as many people as possible in the services, etc; the loss of dread at the thoughts of "the Gospel of God," "sin," "the wrath of God," "ungodliness," unrighteousness," and "suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness," (Rom.1:16-18). I confessed my own failure in this regard, and said that my lack of trembling at the very mention of these truths was evidence of the hardness of my heart.
One Church of Ireland vestry man and CWU committee member said that he thought that I had seen behind the scenes in his church, and confessed that he could identify with everything I had said.
When I got home, I collapsed into my chair, exhausted. I had given my best to the Lord in that service, and was reminded of Calvin's words: "I have given my heart as a sacrifice to God."
This had been so precious a time for us as a family, that I just wanted to tell you about the service and about God's gracious enabling of me, his most unworthy servant.
I have found my mind being filled with a growing number of sermon skeletons, which I have recorded for future use - what is God doing in me and with me?
Thank you for your prayers and your constant support and encouragement.
Some of the members of my former congregations in Tobermore and Draperstown attended the service, and said it was like old times, commended me for the 'strong message' that I brought, and thanked me so warmly for what I had said. One friend said that that was the kind of preaching we should still be getting in church - the reference being to my being sacked by PCI for preaching the same kind of truthful, clear and passionate sermon, thus depriving them of my ministry.
The organisers said that they would have me back again to preach.
It was noteworthy that two elders (friends) from Union Road were also present, and one thanked me for being there, and the other said I had given him much to think about.
I was trying to address the question, Why, if "the Gospel of Christ ... is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes," was its power not being felt, and experienced in the numerous evangelistic services that are held throughout our country?
Answer: Preachers are preaching to people who do not feel their need of Christ; preachers have lost their confidence in the Gospel as "the power of God unto salvation...," therefore have resorted to using the many "obstacles" that have been built up around church life, and are presenting a message that is essentially parallel to Roman Catholicism's "faith+" message, only for evangelicals it is a "gospel+" message - Gospel + testimonies, Gospel + never-ending singing of often silly ditties, Gospel + jokes and frivolity and flippancy - to get people relaxed, Gospel + the active involvement of as many people as possible in the services, etc; the loss of dread at the thoughts of "the Gospel of God," "sin," "the wrath of God," "ungodliness," unrighteousness," and "suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness," (Rom.1:16-18). I confessed my own failure in this regard, and said that my lack of trembling at the very mention of these truths was evidence of the hardness of my heart.
One Church of Ireland vestry man and CWU committee member said that he thought that I had seen behind the scenes in his church, and confessed that he could identify with everything I had said.
When I got home, I collapsed into my chair, exhausted. I had given my best to the Lord in that service, and was reminded of Calvin's words: "I have given my heart as a sacrifice to God."
This had been so precious a time for us as a family, that I just wanted to tell you about the service and about God's gracious enabling of me, his most unworthy servant.
I have found my mind being filled with a growing number of sermon skeletons, which I have recorded for future use - what is God doing in me and with me?
Thank you for your prayers and your constant support and encouragement.
Saturday, 31 January 2009
More Hurt for Victims of Terrorism by Church Leader
Sir, As one of the many victims of institutional abuse, I write to you as a suffering, perplexed, at times confused, and often angry victim. I am being put through continual suffering by people like your esteemed former archbishop, Lord Eames, who, in his current report, co-authored by Denis Bradley, makes me equal with those who murdered my youngest brother in 1977, aged 22.
I find it unacceptable that the former Anglican archbishop of Armagh, who conducted the funerals of many Northern Ireland Anglicans, who died at the hands of terrorist attacks, should now equate them with the vilest terrorist murderers in western Europe.
These 'men (and women) of the cloth' ought to hang their heads in shame at what they have now inflicted on the families of the innocent victims of terrorism. My church of Ireland friends are appalled at what Lord Eames has done, working as he was to the agenda of the NIO, his paymaster. They feel humiliated at what their former church leader has now inflicted upon them. Unbelief at what a minister of the church could do to them knowingly (by his own admission), in all their hurt, grips them, and anger fills many hearts. Lord Eames imagined that he was engaged in a process that would help victims put the past behind them, and thus facilitate their recovery. He, and his fellow-travellers, have done the very opposite.
The scenes at the Europa last Wednesday do not bode well for the future, although the spin that is being put on what happened is that this is a good thing, with more positive results to follow. Wrong! What he and his group have given us is 'more of the same.' The future looks very bleak indeed.
Because Lord Eames is an Anglican minister, his church obviously condones what he has said and done in this offensive report. There will be many Anglicans throughout the world who will be singing Robin's praises, believing that he has done a good thing. The entire Anglican communion will feel very proud of their colleague, not knowing that he has driven many innocent victims of his church and outside it to the very point of despair. They will praise him believing that he has helped bring closure to the many who were hurt in 'the conflict,' not realising that he has brought about further polarisation within the Northern Ireland community.
The very least the church of Ireland can now do is to apologise to every innocent victim of terrorism for the profound hurt that Dr Eames & Co have afflicted on them. I know that apologies by the church are poor substitutes, but when they are accompanied by a deliberate distancing of the church from what Robin has said, and a clear statement that they do not endorse his equating of victims and terrorists, but rather repudiate such an equation, they just might carry a little bit of weight with church members. Perhaps not!
In addition, the church of Ireland should now call Dr Eames in for questioning about the role he has played in the further re-victimisation of the innocent, and the re-traumatising of the victims, many of whom belong to his church. He should be questioned about his lack of judgement and his rank insensitivity towards those who never wanted to be victims in the first place - that decision was made by the terrorists.
Surely, there must be accountability for actions that have caused such deep hurt to people who have been trying to get over their past horrible experiences. Credit would have been accorded to Lord Eames had he stated that he does not share the definition of 'victim' that found its way, unopposed, into legislation, but rather that he found it morally offensive and objectionable; sadly, he did not do so.
Perhaps he has learned the lesson that any legislation that removes the distinction between right and wrong, between law breaker and law keeper, between terrorist who, by definition, always acts outside the law, and those who, by default, have acted within the law, is very poor legislation. Perhaps not! You decide.
I find it unacceptable that the former Anglican archbishop of Armagh, who conducted the funerals of many Northern Ireland Anglicans, who died at the hands of terrorist attacks, should now equate them with the vilest terrorist murderers in western Europe.
These 'men (and women) of the cloth' ought to hang their heads in shame at what they have now inflicted on the families of the innocent victims of terrorism. My church of Ireland friends are appalled at what Lord Eames has done, working as he was to the agenda of the NIO, his paymaster. They feel humiliated at what their former church leader has now inflicted upon them. Unbelief at what a minister of the church could do to them knowingly (by his own admission), in all their hurt, grips them, and anger fills many hearts. Lord Eames imagined that he was engaged in a process that would help victims put the past behind them, and thus facilitate their recovery. He, and his fellow-travellers, have done the very opposite.
The scenes at the Europa last Wednesday do not bode well for the future, although the spin that is being put on what happened is that this is a good thing, with more positive results to follow. Wrong! What he and his group have given us is 'more of the same.' The future looks very bleak indeed.
Because Lord Eames is an Anglican minister, his church obviously condones what he has said and done in this offensive report. There will be many Anglicans throughout the world who will be singing Robin's praises, believing that he has done a good thing. The entire Anglican communion will feel very proud of their colleague, not knowing that he has driven many innocent victims of his church and outside it to the very point of despair. They will praise him believing that he has helped bring closure to the many who were hurt in 'the conflict,' not realising that he has brought about further polarisation within the Northern Ireland community.
The very least the church of Ireland can now do is to apologise to every innocent victim of terrorism for the profound hurt that Dr Eames & Co have afflicted on them. I know that apologies by the church are poor substitutes, but when they are accompanied by a deliberate distancing of the church from what Robin has said, and a clear statement that they do not endorse his equating of victims and terrorists, but rather repudiate such an equation, they just might carry a little bit of weight with church members. Perhaps not!
In addition, the church of Ireland should now call Dr Eames in for questioning about the role he has played in the further re-victimisation of the innocent, and the re-traumatising of the victims, many of whom belong to his church. He should be questioned about his lack of judgement and his rank insensitivity towards those who never wanted to be victims in the first place - that decision was made by the terrorists.
Surely, there must be accountability for actions that have caused such deep hurt to people who have been trying to get over their past horrible experiences. Credit would have been accorded to Lord Eames had he stated that he does not share the definition of 'victim' that found its way, unopposed, into legislation, but rather that he found it morally offensive and objectionable; sadly, he did not do so.
Perhaps he has learned the lesson that any legislation that removes the distinction between right and wrong, between law breaker and law keeper, between terrorist who, by definition, always acts outside the law, and those who, by default, have acted within the law, is very poor legislation. Perhaps not! You decide.
Friday, 30 January 2009
Terrorist Victims Offended Again by Church
SUBSTANCE OF A LETTER TO DR DONALD PATTEN, MODERATOR OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND
(Similar sentiments were also sent to the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, and to Coventry Cathedral where David Porter works)
Dear Dr Patten
I read with disgust, in the Newsletter yesterday (29/01/09), the endorsement of the Eames/Bradley report which your church gave to it. It is quite clear that the service for victims that was held in Belfast by your church and at which you officiated was but a cover-up for your real orientation.
That service may have 'taken in' some Presbyterian victims (the appellation counts for nothing save in the councils of the sectarian), but it did not deceive many others. Your fraternisation with PIRA/SF over decades is enough to dispel any notion that you have any care or concern for victims.
The deafening silence of Presbyterian ministers about this institutionalised re-traumatisation of victims, mainly by senior ecumenical church people, is an affront to decency. It appears that they all endorse the position of PCI on this matter.
I am asking you to do two things, as a matter of urgency; first, to send out through the media an unqualified apology to all those decent victims whom you have insulted by your unsympathetic stance of many years, and your support for this repulsive report; and second, to bring Lesley Carrol in for questioning by Presbyterian victims who share my revulsion to this report and the church authorities for her role in this obscenity.
However, because Lesley Carrol is one of your ministers, you are by default in a conflict of interest situation, so any "considered response" will be, from the outset, invalid.
If you do these two things, and show that you really do support the innocent victims of terrorism, then you will have salvaged some semblance of credibility for your church as a caring institution.
However, if you refuse to come out in support of the innocent victims, many of whose relatives your church's ministers buried, including my youngest brother, Ken, then you will have demonstrated yet again your hypocrisy so far as your concern for the current and constant pain and suffering that many victims of terrorism still experience.
Please do not further retraumatise victims. You witnessed on Wednesday, as I did, the anger and depth of feeling that were expressed at the Europa Hotel - I must add that your refusal to even acknowledge my presence and dignified protest was noted, compared with the personal and gracious approach to me by the current President of the Methodist Conference, and a former one; do not conclude from that that those who chose not to express their anger and disgust, by that means, at the Eames/Bradley report felt any lesser degree of unfathomable emotion.
I found the launch very difficult at times, knowing that the brigadier of the Belfast Brigade of the PIRA, Gerry Adams, who was responsible for numerous terrorist outrages, not least the La Mon massacre, and for the reputation allotted to the Europa Hotel as the most bombed hotel in Europe, and a man who was welcomed into and 'preached' in at least one of your pulpits, was present, thus adding profound insult to long-standing injury on that occasion.
If you can give me any reassurance or even show me any respect as a human being, then I look forward to receiving your reply to this email that was exceedingly painful for me to write and send to you.
Still hurting.
(Similar sentiments were also sent to the Anglican Archbishop of Armagh, and to Coventry Cathedral where David Porter works)
Dear Dr Patten
I read with disgust, in the Newsletter yesterday (29/01/09), the endorsement of the Eames/Bradley report which your church gave to it. It is quite clear that the service for victims that was held in Belfast by your church and at which you officiated was but a cover-up for your real orientation.
That service may have 'taken in' some Presbyterian victims (the appellation counts for nothing save in the councils of the sectarian), but it did not deceive many others. Your fraternisation with PIRA/SF over decades is enough to dispel any notion that you have any care or concern for victims.
The deafening silence of Presbyterian ministers about this institutionalised re-traumatisation of victims, mainly by senior ecumenical church people, is an affront to decency. It appears that they all endorse the position of PCI on this matter.
I am asking you to do two things, as a matter of urgency; first, to send out through the media an unqualified apology to all those decent victims whom you have insulted by your unsympathetic stance of many years, and your support for this repulsive report; and second, to bring Lesley Carrol in for questioning by Presbyterian victims who share my revulsion to this report and the church authorities for her role in this obscenity.
However, because Lesley Carrol is one of your ministers, you are by default in a conflict of interest situation, so any "considered response" will be, from the outset, invalid.
If you do these two things, and show that you really do support the innocent victims of terrorism, then you will have salvaged some semblance of credibility for your church as a caring institution.
However, if you refuse to come out in support of the innocent victims, many of whose relatives your church's ministers buried, including my youngest brother, Ken, then you will have demonstrated yet again your hypocrisy so far as your concern for the current and constant pain and suffering that many victims of terrorism still experience.
Please do not further retraumatise victims. You witnessed on Wednesday, as I did, the anger and depth of feeling that were expressed at the Europa Hotel - I must add that your refusal to even acknowledge my presence and dignified protest was noted, compared with the personal and gracious approach to me by the current President of the Methodist Conference, and a former one; do not conclude from that that those who chose not to express their anger and disgust, by that means, at the Eames/Bradley report felt any lesser degree of unfathomable emotion.
I found the launch very difficult at times, knowing that the brigadier of the Belfast Brigade of the PIRA, Gerry Adams, who was responsible for numerous terrorist outrages, not least the La Mon massacre, and for the reputation allotted to the Europa Hotel as the most bombed hotel in Europe, and a man who was welcomed into and 'preached' in at least one of your pulpits, was present, thus adding profound insult to long-standing injury on that occasion.
If you can give me any reassurance or even show me any respect as a human being, then I look forward to receiving your reply to this email that was exceedingly painful for me to write and send to you.
Still hurting.
Friday, 16 January 2009
Passion for the Gospel
I have just this week completed Iain H Murray's D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones - The First Forty Years, and, my, what an inspiring read that was. I have not felt my heart so enlarged for some time as I did during the reading of this volume. It re-lit the flame within me once again for the preaching ministry. What a man of God DMLJ was! What a mentor for young and older ministers! What a pastor to Christian believers!
This book has had a profound effect for good on me, yet just how that effect will work itself out is another question altogether. The fire has been rekindled within my soul, and I long to have the opportunity to preach the Gospel of Christ once again with greater regularity.
I am so glad that this subject will be treated at the Puritan Reformed conference to be held in Belfast on 7th February 2009, and I am looking forward to hearing what Geoff Thomas has to say about the Doc. I hope he will present the true Doctor, and not a sanitised version that satisfies the taste-buds of the high orthodox. I trust also that Geoff will deal with the data that is to hand - all of it - and not try to squeeze what he thinks DMLJ ought to have been, rather than what the data presents him as.
The dishonesty that exists within reformed evangelicalism is endemic throughout the reformed churches, and this is seen in the resolute refusal to apply the Word of the Gospel to the churches themselves, but only to non-Christians, Christians and church members. Sadly, not all can recognise this dishonesty when it presents itself. Many good men prefer to hide behind their own perception of what being 'reformed' means, rather than returning to Calvin himself, and recognising the breadth and balanced biblicism of his theology.
My next reading pleasure will be Vol.2 of the DMLJ biography, a task to which I am looking forward immensely. No Christian or minister can do better than to immerse him/herself in the Doctor's preaching, as recorded in print, and to be touched profoundly by this physician of the soul's sermons.
This book has had a profound effect for good on me, yet just how that effect will work itself out is another question altogether. The fire has been rekindled within my soul, and I long to have the opportunity to preach the Gospel of Christ once again with greater regularity.
I am so glad that this subject will be treated at the Puritan Reformed conference to be held in Belfast on 7th February 2009, and I am looking forward to hearing what Geoff Thomas has to say about the Doc. I hope he will present the true Doctor, and not a sanitised version that satisfies the taste-buds of the high orthodox. I trust also that Geoff will deal with the data that is to hand - all of it - and not try to squeeze what he thinks DMLJ ought to have been, rather than what the data presents him as.
The dishonesty that exists within reformed evangelicalism is endemic throughout the reformed churches, and this is seen in the resolute refusal to apply the Word of the Gospel to the churches themselves, but only to non-Christians, Christians and church members. Sadly, not all can recognise this dishonesty when it presents itself. Many good men prefer to hide behind their own perception of what being 'reformed' means, rather than returning to Calvin himself, and recognising the breadth and balanced biblicism of his theology.
My next reading pleasure will be Vol.2 of the DMLJ biography, a task to which I am looking forward immensely. No Christian or minister can do better than to immerse him/herself in the Doctor's preaching, as recorded in print, and to be touched profoundly by this physician of the soul's sermons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)