Affection On Things Above

Review: John MacArthur's Five Arguments Against Infant Baptism

2011-11-28T15:58:00.002Z

Most baptist arguments are both commonly used, and very poor. They rely on people's ignorance of the Reformed position. John MacArthur's arguments here are representative, and taken from this article: http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-369/is-infant-baptism-biblical#.Tp7nQpsUq30

I've tried to be succinct in my criticism, while providing effective refutations of these very common baptist arguments. John MacArthur's points are listed briefly as headings, and my answers are below. Thanks to a Lutheran (with whom I have strong disagreement), Charles Wiese for directing me to this article. Some of his arguments are also repeated here.

A Short Note on the Anabaptists

I have pointed out where possible the connection with the philosophies and the heritage of the Anabaptists at the time of the Reformation. This was a group which became infamous for being violent revolutionaries, hyper-spirituality, and even trying to set up a millenial kingdom of God on earth. An extreme example would be the city of Muenster which was taken in an Anabaptist rebellion. Jan Mattys, a self-styled prophet, called it “New Jerusalem.” His successor, John of Leiden, became notorious for polygamy and abuse of communism, before the city was captured and the rebels tortured and executed gruesomely. They were sometimes called the Radical Reformation, but not all the Anabaptists were as radical as this. Nevertheless, they formed a third separate group in distinction from the Reformers and the Romanists at the Reformation. They rejected Rome, and yet also claimed that the Reformers didn't go far enough. Today, this threefold distinction is still clearly seen, and readers must consider with which group they must be identified, to be in communion with the true church of the past.

Their commonly held views included refusing to submit to civil government in favour of setting up an alternative theocracy via rebellion (or alternatively, strict pacifism), refusing to take oaths, communion of goods, denial of personal property, direct revelations via prophecy, a future millenial kingdom, and of course, re-baptising converts to their religion. They did this because they judged the baptism of other churches as false and worthless. For these reasons, they were greatly persecuted as a dangerous, violent, and divisive sect. Many Baptists today deny their connection with these more radical groups, but really it is the theological heritage of their position, and their philosophy is closer, especially among Pentecostals (who are almost without exception Baptists), than they would like to admit.

Introduction: Infant Baptism Was Introduced in the Fourth Century

This was the same claim made by the Anabaptists. It's wrong. Today, many baptist groups are still trying to rewrite history to support their position, even trying to paint a rosier picture of the Anabaptist movement. Actually the historical defence is so painfully absent for the Anabaptist position that many resorted to a theology of restorationism. In contrast to successionism (the idea that there were always those who denied infant baptism), this view is that the gates of hell did actually prevail against the church for many years until God restored the church through the super-spiritual Anabaptists. This is much like the Mormon view of church history invented by Joseph Smith who claimed to be an apostle. MacArthur later concedes further to say that infant baptism "started appearing in the second and third century." While this view of church history could be effectively shown as totally false, the authority is Holy Scripture, not differing views of history.

1. Infant Baptism Is Not in Scripture

The Lord's Supper being administered to women is not in Scripture either, yet we all practice this. This shows that it is indeed legitimate to study scriptural principles by which it can be deduced. The baptists cannot fault us for doing this to prove infant baptism. We do not need to give baptists one single verse that proves it. This is a wrong view of Scripture and logic. This kind of argument, which downplays the use of deduction by “good and necessary consequence,” was the same philosophy of the Anabaptists. The baptist confession that is closest to the Reformed faith, is the London Baptist Confession of 1689 (LBCF) which is mostly the same as the Westminster Confession (WCF) of the Presbyterians. In WCF 1:6, the authority of that which “by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” is asserted. This statement is absent from the LBCF!

a. The Reformers Didn't Jettison Infant Baptism out of Fear of Persecution

Baptists claim the Reformers didn't go far enough because they were afraid of Rome. Unless they can answer the following question, they need to drop this argument. Why would they compromise on this issue, when justification by faith alone was already more than enough to have them burnt?

b. Matthew 19:14, Mark 10:14, and Luke 18:16 Only Mean That God Has a Special Care for Children.

Luke says specifically that infants were carried by their parents, and that Christ blessed them. If Christ blesses someone, and all authority on heaven and earth belongs to him, surely they cannot be cursed, and are therefore saved. He also told his disciples, “of such is the kingdom of heaven.” If these infants brought to Christ are actually citizens of the kingdom of heaven, how can we refuse them baptism? One cannot be a citizen of this spiritual kingdom and not be a member of the church. Therefore citizenship in the kingdom, just as much as membership in the church, is symbolised in baptism.

What does "a special care for children" even mean? If anything, Baptist theology teaches that God has a special care for adults. Besides, if all children were equally precious to God, how does he explain the slaughter of the Canaanite men, women, and children, the slaughter of the Amalekites, or the dashing of Babylon's little ones against the rocks in Psalm 137?

c. All members of the households that were baptised all believed first.

Yet before Paul even met the Philippian jailor's household, he told him, "Believe and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Surely this meant that if he believed, his household would also be saved? We know it did not necessarily mean that there will be no reprobates in his house, as Rom. 9:6-8 explains. Scripture simply doesn't say that they all believed first in any of the examples of household baptisms. Nor does it ever say there were no infants. This is unlikely notion is forced on into the text by baptists. Admittedly it doesn't say explicitly that there were, which is why we would prefer to use stronger arguments. Even so, the only examples of specific baptisms in which households were not also baptised, are Christ, the eunuch who was a eunuch, and Paul who was single.

2. Infant Baptism Is Not New Testament Baptism.

This would mean that all Reformed and Presbyterian churches are full of people who have never been baptised. This position is not simply baptist, it is Anabaptist, because it means we all need to be re-baptised.

a. Baptise Means Immerse.

What about I Cor. 10:1-2? Who was immersed at the Red Sea, the children of Israel (which definitely included infants!), or wicked Pharoah and his armies? What would “immersed unto Moses” even mean? Many more examples could be given which demonstrate a use of “baptise” which cannot mean “immerse.” Consider also why the translators went to the trouble of inventing a new English word “baptise,” if using the word immerse would have been sufficient. We hold that to baptise something indicates a change being made to something by means of contact with something else. Most generally the idea of washing seems to be intended, as being a very basic change from dirty to clean by use of water. The word has also been used to describe dyeing clothes a different colour, a person becoming drunk with wine, or in the example above, the children of Israel all taught under the ministry of Moses.

b. Baptism Is a Picture of Union With Christ in His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

How does submerging symbolise Christ's death of being nailed to the cross? How does full immersion symbolise Christ's burial in a tomb above ground by a stone rolled in front of the cave? How does emersion (lifted out of the water) symbolise Christ's resurrection? The picture ought fit the reality. And if baptism means immersion, how can emersion be part of the symbolism and their practice? And even if it was meant to symbolise modern burial practices, why use water instead of soil, dirt, and earth? In the baptist picture, there's no logical basis for using water. Their error comes from thinking that Romans 6 is speaking about the sacrament. It's not. Even so, it doesn't speak about immersion. It's speaking about the further implications of the reality of being united to Christ which it calls baptism in Christ, and describes as being “planted.” If it was speaking about the mode of the sacrament, then planting would be appropriate picture.

Baptism is union with Christ; spiritual baptism, not water baptism. There is no water in Romans 6. Water baptism pictures spiritual baptism; the washing of regeneration which saves us (I Peter 3:20-21; Titus 3:5). By this we are united to Christ, and therefore united also in His life, suffering, death, burial, resurrection, and even with His session at the right hand of God in heaven (Eph. 2:6). Since it symbolises spiritual washing from sin, water used for washing is most appropriate. And since Scripture speaks of this reality never as immersion, but as being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, and having the Holy Spirit poured on us, then sprinkling or pouring are the most appropriate methods.

c. Infants Can't Have Faith.

Instead of considering Scripture, the baptists resort to rationalism, scoffing at the very idea of infants having faith. Yet Scripture even speaks of infants not only having faith, but exercising it! Consider John the Baptist who leaps for joy in the presence of Christ (Luke 1:15, 41, 44), Jeremiah who was sanctified before birth (Jer. 1:5), David who was made to hope when a suckling (Psalm 22:9), or even Christ. These are not unique examples; God is indeed praised by babes and sucklings (Psalm 8:2), and Christ refers to this in order to rebuke the Pharisees for complaining at the praise of young children (Matt. 21:16).

3. Infant Baptism Is Not a Replacement for Circumcision.

In contrast, Colossians 2:11-12 identifies baptism with circumcision.

a. Circumcision Was Just a Sign of Ethnic Identity.

Romans 4:11 calls circumcision a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. Isn't this also what the sign of baptism is? Yet, John MacArthur claims that circumcision has nothing to do with symbolising salvation. He is a dispensationalist who believes (like many Anabaptist did), in a future millenial kingdom, specifically for the ethnic Jews. If it does mean ethnic identity in addition, this means the circumcised are to be counted as the children of Abraham. In fact, one cannot be counted as a child of Abraham without the sign of the covenant. Remember that this is an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7-11). We see in the New Testament that Abraham is called the father of the faithful (Rom. 4:11-14). Gentile Christians are called true Jews (Rom. 2:27-28), and children of Abraham (Gal. 3:7).

This is explained to mean that through faith, not through the law, we are the recipients of all the promises and blessings of God in Christ, Abraham's seed (Gal. 3:8-29). The gospel of the justification of the heathen was preached to Abraham when he was told that all nations would be blessed through him. It is through faith in the promise that we receive the inheritance promised to Abraham and his seed, because the covenant of God is everlasting and unconditional, and therefore cannot be disannulled. This is because the covenant is with Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, who is also the only Mediator of the covenant, and we, with Abraham and all who believe, are in Him. Notice also, that this means we are the proper recipients of the inheritance promised to Abraham, described to him as the land of Canaan to given as an “everlasting possession.” Romans 4:13 explains that this meant that Abraham, with us, would be heir of the world. Since baptism signifies then that we are Christians through faith, that is, the true children of Abraham, it has exactly the same meaning and function as circumcision did. And if circumcision could legitimately be applied to children (indeed it had to be!), then baptism can be too. In fact, when one considers that it is the sign of the covenant with us and our children, it must be!

b. People Believe Infant Baptism Saves Them

Many have wrong superstitions about the Lord's Supper too. The consistent Reformed view is that just like the preaching, the sacraments are only of benefit to the elect through faith.

c. Presumptive Regeneration and the Federal Vision Are Wrong.

MacArthur is right to condemn this false doctrines. Nevertheless, God does promise to save our children, not head-for-head, but according to the election of grace (Rom. 9:6-8). Therefore, just as Scripture teaches, we believe in the promised salvation of our children (and therefore promised regeneration, not presumed), even though we also believe and bear in mind that there may be reprobate children of the flesh too. And we believe this not because we have baptised our children, but we baptise them because of this covenant promise of God. The promise of salvation is given just as much to adult believers as to their children (Acts 2:39), though we know that there may be reprobates among the children of the flesh, just as much as there may be hypocrites among the adults. The promise is to the elect, whom God draws unto Himself.

Yet, we cannot differentiate between the wheat and tares (Matt. 13:29). In time the reprobate may manifest themselves by their wickedness, and be put under discipline and eventually excommunicated, yet others remain hidden hypocrites, and still others who are elect may be excommunicated and later brought to repentance (I Cor. 5:1-8; II Cor. 2:6-8). This doesn't make us lazy in bringing up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4), but rather gives us confidence that it's not all in vain!

4. Infant Baptism Destroys the Nature of the Church.

Another old Anabaptist belief was the idea of a pure church with only regenerate membership. This also shows that they really exclude in every sense their children from the church and kingdom of Christ, since they deny that an infant can be regenerate. But Christ said, "of such is the kingdom of God," and, "Forbid them not to come unto me" (Mark 10:14). He was not simply referring to the infants who were not even able to come of themselves, but to the parents who had to carry the babes in their arms! This false belief about the church also means that Reformed and Presbyterian churches are not true churches at all.

Their inconsistency is that baptised adults can be unregenerate, hypocrites, and apostatise, just as much as those who were baptised as infants. Their idea of the reality of a regenerate church is never a reality. In a great house, there are vessels present for different purposes; some noble, others ignoble (II Tim. 2:18-20). There are always tares among the wheat. While the Reformed recognise that God has a purpose with hidden tares in the church, the baptists try to root out the tares and in doing so root out the wheat (Matt. 13:29, 38). The Reformed recognise that the goal of church discipline is not to rigorously try to root out all the reprobate, but to seek the holiness of each member. The baptist will point out that Christ said that “the field is the world,” as if this meant that the tares in the world are not also present in the church. Since the wheat is also in the world, we cannot imagine that Christ meant that there are no tares in the church. This would completely overturn his presentation of the tares being mixed among the wheat, and the difficulty in discerning the difference between the two until harvest time. The church most certainly is in the world (but not of the world; John 17:11, 14-16), and therefore the tares sown in the world will be found in the church also. This is the reality in baptist churches too. If Christ commands the very angels not to try to uproot the tares before the final judgment, in case they uproot the wheat, how much more should the baptists heed this command?

Historically the Anabaptists have been guilty of world-flight, thinking that the key to holiness lies in a physical, even geographical separation of the church from the world. Even if it were possible to flee the reprobate entirely, we still bring the wicked world with us in our old sinful nature. Instead God has a purpose with close contact of the elect and reprobate, even placing reprobate children, like Esau, in covenant homes, amidst elect children. God wills for them to be hardened in the church, and for the elect to be tested by them for their sanctification. We could deduce many more reasons also.

5. Infant Baptism Is Not Consistent With Reformed Soteriology

This claim is very short-sighted. Doesn't the sprinkling of water on a helpless baby who does nothing far better illustrate that God is the one alone who saves us by the sprinkling of the blood and Spirit of Christ, entirely of grace, according to His unconditional election, before we have done any works whatsoever? Since the Reformed believe in infant salvation, it would be totally inappropriate if we did not baptise infants. The baptist complains that not all the babies are saved. Yet Isaac was commanded to circumcise reprobate Esau even though he would not be saved, as a sign of God's everlasting covenant with us and our elect children. Not all baptised adults are saved either. Does this nullify the symbolism of baptism, and its benefit to the elect through faith? And how can the claim be made that God has a special care for children when the claim is also made that they are not regenerate, not members of the church, and cannot have faith!

While the baptism of infants illustrates the sovereignty of God in salvation, as well as the covenant of God maintained from generation to generation, the baptist practice does not correctly symbolise the work of regeneration, or God's sovereignty in it, and certainly doesn't show anything about God's covenant with us and our children. The focus in immersion is entirely on the person going under and coming up, doing all the action, while the water does nothing. It is actually re-baptism that nullifies what baptism is supposed to signify. I grant that from their faulty perspective, this is not what they think they are doing, but if infant baptism is valid (as we have seen), then they are actually re-baptising.

Who does God love?

2011-10-19T23:41:00.001+01:00

I wrote this rather long reply to an old friend who was asking me about the love of God. But I thought perhaps other people might find it helpful too.

Dear X,

I'll mention my stand first of all, and then try to explain it to you afterwards. The question is one that I was forced to consider a lot, especially by a close Christian friend who challenged my previous position about it. In the end, I could see how my position didn't really fit Scripture and contradicted itself, but it was still some time before I was not too stubborn to admit that.

I believe that God has loved everlastingly the ungodly and undeserving, the wicked, and depraved. This is the main idea in one of the key passages in Scripture that speaks about the love of God; "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." (Rom. 5:5-10).

But I don't believe that this means all the ungodly, because then all would certainly be saved (and we know that this is not the case). As the passage above teaches, those who have been justified by His blood, are certainly saved from wrath through Christ. The passage ties various things together inseparably.

One, God's love is tied to the atoning death of Christ, so that Christ's death is the expression and action of God's love.

Two, justification (that is, being legally accounted righteous in the sight of God) is tied to Christ's atoning death. We are justified by His blood. This is because Christ bore the punishment for our sins, and therefore our sins cannot be held against any longer, and so those for whom Christ died can only be righteous in God's sight since their sins have been paid for.

Three, justification is tied to eternal salvation. Those for whom Christ died, are justified, and therefore saved from wrath. This is because God cannot and will not have any wrath towards those who are legally righteous, whose sins have been paid for by Christ.

Four, reconciliation is also tied to Christ's death. It is by the death of Christ that we who were once enemies against God, become friends of Him. So not only are we accounted righteous before God by Christ's death, but we are also brought into a sweet fellowship of love with God who loved us.

Five, this reconciliation is also tied to eternal life. Because Christ has reconciled us by His death, how much more then are we who are reconciled saved eternally by Him who lives eternally for us.

So then all whom God loves, Christ died for, and all whom Christ died for, are justified, and reconciled, and all these are also saved eternally. Therefore, not only are all those for whom Christ died saved eternally from wrath, but all those whom God loves are saved eternally from wrath. And this stands to reason because God's love is incompatible with wrath. He cannot have any wrath towards those whom He loves, otherwise, what kind of love would that be? And where would the comfort of that love be?

But there is even another inseparable connection made in this passage, the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. So, if God loves us, He sheds abroad that love in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. In other words, He causes those whom He loves to know that He loves us, by His Holy Spirit who dwells within us. We know that God's Spirit does not dwell in anyone except those who come to faith in Jesus Christ who are saved eternally, and therefore we know also from this that God does not love every single person. But those whom He does love have unspeakably glorious consolation and comfort in His love from His Spirit.

As Romans 8:9 says, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." Which means also that if we have the Spirit, we have great comfort knowing that we belong to Christ who will certainly "quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you." (v. 11). There is a marvellous and sweet inner work of the Holy Spirit which changes our hearts, so that as God loves us, our stony hearts are melted and love Him too. As I John 4:19 says, "We love Him, because He first loved us." And this too means that those who do not love God, it is not because we are better than they are, for we are as wicked and undeserving as all humanity, but it is that God determined to love us, and withheld this precious love from others, according to His inscrutable purpose.

He says, "I was found of them that sought me not. I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me." (Rom. 10:20). As such I believe God's love is entirely gracious, and when I say entirely gracious, I mean that we do nothing that causes God to love us more or less, and that all our love for Him is a result of His love for us. So, that His infinite, unchangeable, unconditional, and Almighty love for us, is the only thing that makes us different in anyway to those who will receive what we all deserve in hell. The difference is not our success and their failure, then it is not grace, but merit by which we make ourselves more acceptable in the sight of God than others, as if we made ourselves different and prompted God to save us on account of this difference.

But I'm not saying that we don't have to do our part. It's just that if salvation is entirely gracious, and if God's love is truly what Scripture says it is, then our part is not left up to us, but God causes us to do our part. His love stirs us up, and changes us from the inside out, so that we begin to love Him in return.

I could refer to many more Scriptures which prove that God's love never ever fails to save, such as Romans 8 (and I could explain those passages which seem to suggest otherwise which used to trouble me when I first studied this), but if you take time to look closely at the short passage in Romans 5 that I have quoted, and simply understand what it is saying exactly, then you'll see that it can mean nothing else other than what I have explained here, and then the rest of the Bible, and all those passages from beginning to end which bear on this subject will fit together perfectly.

I chose to refer to this passage because it is one of the simplest and clearest, while at the same being one of the most beautiful and comforting, as it also shows why this issue is important - because to say God loves everyone, ends up with a love of God that in the end cannot comfort us, if we think that even though God loves us we could still go to hell. Scripture is far more assuring and comforting than that - to whosoever believes.

But if I was to pick the very shortest, and most unmistakeable passage on this subject (and there are so many), I would quote, "Jacob I have loved, but Esau have I hated."

Many have tried to explain away the plain meaning of this, and I've probably heard all the arguments by now (most of which I imagined myself in my own stubborn refusal to see what Scripture teaches about this), but I'm sure you know, love is incompatible with hatred, and hatred is incompatible with love. If there was any hatred in God's love, then there is no comfort in such love, and we may as well not call it love. Therefore, if God hated Esau, as Scripture here says, He did not also love Him in some sense, otherwise His love is meaningless and comfortless.

But I didn't refer you to this passage first, because I want you to know why this is so important. This verse proves what I've said, but it doesn't show you the unspeakable comfort of it, and the reason that I would even die for this truth about God's Almighty love, for me, you, and all who believe in Christ, according to His gracious choice. So, that I can say, the only reason I am not going to hell is because of God's love for me. This one thing is therefore enough for me to know, that God loves me, therefore I am saved eternally from hell, the devil, the wicked world, and all my sin and enmity towards God.

I know that these things are difficult to understand and to accept, but we must trust God's wisdom and goodness, and believe what He has revealed to us, no matter what. As Abraham said to God, hearing about the coming judgment on Sodom, and fearing for His nephew Lot, who had ended up there on account of his own covetousness, he pleads with God and says, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Such was the faith of Abraham, and such is our faith also. Even though Scripture contains things difficult to understand, and God's thoughts are infinitely higher than ours, we remember that God is always good and just, even if we don't understand His purposes, and why He saves some and not others. But Scripture doesn't leave us completely without explanation. But to hear this, we need to first of all be utterly convinced that God would be no less loving, or just, or good if we went to hell as we deserve. When we understand that, then we have begun to know what the grace of God really is.

Your friend,

Sam

The Children of Believers are Holy

2011-06-16T14:55:00.000+01:00

"Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy [I Cor. 7:14], not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." - Canons (I) A17.

Inquirer: "Is this passage saying that children of the elect are also automatically elect or just that Godly parents will raise their children in such a way as that they also believe?"

Dear Inquirer,

In answer to your question, the verse we are considering is I Cor. 7:14. You asked whether this speaks of the children of the elect being "automatically elect" or just that godly parents raise their children so that they believe. What is the correct interpretation here?

I'll quote the verse:

"For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." - 1Co 7:14.

The immediate context is where Paul is answering some of the questions posed to him by a young predominantly Gentile church in Corinth, which was notorious even among the heathen for its rampant and particularly debauched and depraved fornication (they even coined the term, "to Corinthianize," meaning to fornicate). The situation was that some believers in the Corinthian church had been converted from heathendom, while their spouses had not been converted and remained unbelieving.

They had received the essential instruction not to have fellowship with unbelievers because they would be corrupted by such ungodly fellowship (which Paul refers to in I Cor. 5:9, and reiterates throughout that same chapter concerning their failure to discipline and excommunicate a man who was fornicating with his step-mother, and which he also reiterates in I Cor. 10:20; 15:33, and in the second letter to them; II Cor. 6:14-18). They already knew of his warnings not to have fellowship with unbelievers, and so it was natural for them, in godly concern, to ask him concerning their marriages with unbelievers, since ordinarily a marriage involves the greatest measure of fellowship (obviously the implication first of all, was that they should only marry in Lord--as Paul clarifies in verse 39--but here Paul considers the case of those who have been converted while their spouse has not been).

Their concern is that in this close fellowship of marriage, that they will be corrupted by their spouse, and they wonder if it is the will of God for them to divorce their unbelieving spouse. This was especially urgent because it was not a case that the Lord Jesus specifically addressed in his earthly ministry (or at least it is not recorded for us in the Gospels). Firstly, Paul reiterates Christ's command concerning divorce ("unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord" - v. 10), even though He did not specifically refer to this situation. This is helpful, because it teaches us to simply obey Christ, no matter how much we imagine our own situation to be a "special case". They must not leave their spouse, and if they do (for whatever reason, whether sinfully, or on account of fornication which is the only lawful ground for divorce), they must nevertheless remain unmarried or be reconciled to their spouse (v. 10, 11). Remarriage is forbidden because marriage is an unbreakable life-long bond. Even after divorce (whether lawful or not), it is only if the spouse dies that they are free to marry again--otherwise they are committing adultery, according to what Christ has clearly taught as recorded in the Gospels.

Secondly, he treats their specific situation. He teaches them not to divorce their unbelieving spouses (v.12, 13). And he gives to them comfort to assay their fears in this situation based upon authoritative apostolic doctrine, which he proves based upon what they know about their children (v.14). This is what we need to examine in more detail.

Thirdly, he explains to them what their calling is if the unbelieving spouse is not content to dwell with them, but deserts them (v. 15). In this case, they may allow their spouse to leave. They are not required to go after them according to the requirements of their marriage, e.g., the responsibility to dwell with their spouse and give them "due benevolence" (v. 3, 5; Gen. 2:24; I Pet. 3:7; etc). According to Paul's apostolic authority, the deserted believer "is not under bondage in such cases". He does not say that the deserted believer "is not bound" any longer to their spouse, but rather that they are not "under bondage" (these are completely different words and concepts in the Greek). Bondage refers to slavery, not the unbreakable life-long union of marriage. It refers to the terrible hardship that they would have if they had to go after such an ungodly spouse. Instead, "God hath called [them] to peace". He does not even suggest in any sense that the marriage bond is broken, but merely that they may in a good peaceful conscience allow the unbeliever to depart. And he certainly does not suggest anything either about remarriage. The command of the Lord that he just mentioned is very plain here: "if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband". There cannot be remarriage while the spouse is still living--not only because marriage is a life-long bond, but also because this would destroy any possibility of reconciliation. God hates divorce (Mal. 2:14-16), and allows it only on the ground of fornication--but even in this remarriage is absolutely forbidden and clearly repeatedly declared to be adultery (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; Rom. 7:2, 3).

Finally, he gives them hope concerning their unbelieving spouse, that they don't know whether or not God may yet save them, and even use their witness in bringing their spouse to conversion (v. 16; I Pet. 3:1, 2).

But what exactly is the comfort for those who must dwell with unbelievers who are enemies of God and His Christ? Will believers not be utterly corrupted and destroyed by such a close relationship with such profane and ungodly people? Paul answers no, "for the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband". This doesn't mean that they are saved, because they are nevertheless "unbelieving," and this is also why the term "sanctified" is not qualified as "sanctified in Christ", as Paul addresses the Corinthian church at the beginning of the letter (I Cor. 1:2). In fact, this verse is the only place in the entire New Testament that this particular form of the Greek word translated here "sanctified" is used: ηγιασται. From the context, and considering that the husband or wife are nevertheless "unbelieving" we must understand it not to refer them being personally holy by union with Jesus Christ as if they have received the Holy Spirit and are also cleansed by His blood. Rather it can only refer to them being set apart in such a way that the believing spouse is not corrupted by their wickedness in the marriage, this is the sense in which they are "sanctified", on account of, and for the sake of, the believing spouse. Therefore the believer need not be concerned, because God sanctifies their unbelieving spouse, for their sakes to keep them from their uncleanness (even though He does not save them). Needless to say, every other instance of the forms of the Greek word upon which this word is based, always refers to true spiritual holiness, in devotion to God in Christ, washed in His blood and filled by His Spirit. Only because here it qualifies them as "unbelieving" (and later adds the question "what knowest thou, o wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband?") can we conclude (and we must conclude), that it does not refer to this true holiness with respect to God.

But in order that this doctrine may be of great comfort to those in such situations, Paul grounds it and proves it to them based upon something even more incontrovertible and obvious: "else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."

Their children are holy. This is a word that is frequently used in the New Testament, and when used in reference to people, it always only refers to them being actually saved, washed in Christ's blood and Spirit. It is a true inner holiness, according to which the heart (and thereby the whole person) is consecrated unto God in loving fellowship with Him and in truly willing obedience. Along with this, it is also a true spiritual separation from the world and the devil, and every corruption. God makes His people holy, and therefore calls us "saints", which means "holy [ones]". In the same sense therefore that all God's graciously elect people are holy, the children referred to in this verse are "holy". It is very important that we first understand exactly and are entirely convinced about what this holiness is, before I answer your specific questions. In this verse, he is not merely saying "your children are elect," or "your children will be saved," or "your children belong to Christ." He is saying that they are being saved right now, they are "holy", they have been born again (are regenerate) since they have the Holy Spirit without which they cannot be holy, they are united with Christ the Holy One, they are now in holy fellowship with the Holy God, they are no longer unclean, but seperate from the world, they have been effectually called out of darkness into this holy light, and are necessarily members of Christ's holy church and His holy covenant, along with all His saints (i.e., His "holy ones").

But I hear your objection, and where your question is coming from. What about those children of believers who grow up and manifest themselves to be wicked unbelievers, hypocrites, and thoroughly reprobate, self-condemned, and are in the end damned to hell, to which dreadful end they were appointed? We need to be careful not to misunderstand Paul's language here. When he addresses the Corinthian church at the beginning of the letter, as "sanctified in Christ Jesus" and "saints," he was not denying there were no doubt hypocrites in their congregation. In fact he says as much in I Cor. 11:17-19, and urges them to purge out the old leaven of wicked unconverted members in chapter 5. Likewise when he refers to the children as "holy," he is not saying that every single child is necessarily holy. It is understood that there will no doubt be some exceptions, some reprobates among the children of God--just as there are tares in a wheat field. But we still call it a wheat field, and say that it is a field of wheat, and that we are growing wheat in that field, and this is the purpose of the field. If asked specifically, we certainly admit that there may be some tares in there among the wheat, but we view the field according to the wheat, not according to the tares, and we treat the field according to the wheat, not according to the possible presence of tares. And the tares and the wheat must grow up together and first bear fruit before any can be uprooted. This is the principle taught in the parable of the wheat field as Christ is explaining the kingdom of God. Since Christ is teaching the parable in order to explain the kingdom of God, He is speaking primarily about the church, and it is therefore entirely proper that the same principle applies to children in the church. This priniciple is also spoken of in II Tim. 2:19-21, explaining to a young pastor how it can be that those who seem to have been faithful members of the church can so suddenly manifest themselves to be rotten heretics and wolves seeking to destroy the church.

And this is not simply inference (though that would be enough, even if slightly less clear immediately), rather it is the clear and specific teaching of Scripture especially in Romans 9. Here the apostle Paul meets this very question head on, and explains it most fully. After explaining the glorious Gospel truth of justification by faith alone in Christ alone without works, and salvation for totally depraved sinners entirely by the sovereign grace of God by which He works all things for the good of His beloved elect (Rom. 8:28ff), Paul turns to answer some objections. What about the Jews? If what you're saying is true, that salvation is by grace alone and Christ has fully accomplished our redemption by Himself in His atoning substitutionary death on the cross paying for all our sins, how is it that so many Jews who were first of all promised this salvation in father Abraham, do not believe in Christ, and remain unconverted? He answers that his heart is heavy for them, and that he could even wish if it were possible, that he could be cut off from Christ (that is damned eternally), for their sakes, that they might be received in Christ. But he knows this is impossible. And he begins his answer, not by saying that God's promise has failed, or that salvation does not rely solely upon God's promise, but upon their free will or other works, or by denying the Old Testament which records the promises made to them, or by saying that the promises made to the Jews were merely earthly and carnal rather than spiritual; but rather, he asserts the Old Testament and all the things given to them, including the promises, and proclaims that it is not that God's word to them has failed.

This leads us to be all the more flabbergasted! How so, Paul? Can't you see the direct contradiction here?! But he answers:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Rom 9:6-8.

And he goes on to give concrete examples, of Isaac, and especially of Jacob and Esau (v. 9-13). According to God's sovereign election, He does maintain His covenant with us and our children, and truly saves our children, but he does not save every single one, because there are those who are merely children of the flesh, who are merely "of Israel", and not truly "Israel". Not every single child of believing parents is actually in the everlasting unconditional covenant of grace which was first declared in Paradise (Gen. 3:15), and revealed again to Noah (Gen. 9:8-9), and also to Abraham (Gen. 17:7), and which God has confirmed by Jesus Christ. Abraham is especially important, because he is considered the father of the Jewish people, and the New Testament explains that he is the father of the faithful, and it was especially to him, that God revealed His promise to save the Gentiles in Christ. The New Testament is very clear about this (Gal. 3:6-9). So the promises made to Abraham are exactly the promises made to every one who believes in Jesus Christ who is united to Him by true faith, that living spiritual bond worked in us by the Spirit of God. And God promises, "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." - Gen. 17:7.

So, as it was with the children of true believers in the Old Testament, so it is in the New Testament. God's covenant is with us and our seed "in their generations for an everlasting covenant." And it consists in this, "to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee". He is our God, and the God of our children in their generations. As Paul also teaches in Rom. 11:16, "For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches." This is why Abraham was required to administer the sign of circumcision, and why Moses was nearly killed by God for not giving the sign of the covenant to his child. And this is why the children of believers are baptised, not because we believe that God saves every single child, but because we believe in His covenant of grace with us and our children according to election.

And this is why it was so obvious to the Corinthians that their children were not unclean, but holy--because baptism is a sign and seal of our cleansing from sin by the blood and Spirit of Jesus Christ. The whole idea of baptism is seen in that it involves water, and therefore it symbolises washing, not physical washing, but spiritual (I Pet. 3:21). Not that their children were made holy by the outward sign of baptism (which the reprobate and hypocrites also receive, yet only to their condemnation), but rather, they were baptised because they were already holy. They must receive the sign which corresponds to the reality which they have already received. Our children are not made holy by receiving baptism; they receive baptism because they are holy, as this verse (I Cor. 7:14) tells us most plainly and clearly. They do not become members of Christ's church and covenant by baptism, rather, they receive baptism because they are already members. That there may be reprobate among them according to the purpose of God makes no difference, in as much as it makes no difference that there may be hypocrites among adult who profess faith. Esau had to be circumcised, even though his parents were told he was reprobate, and even the apostles themselves occasionally baptised hypocrites, such as Simon Magus. Again, we treat the wheat field according to the wheat, not according to the possible presence of tares. In that the Corinthians knew that their children were baptised according to God's gracious covenant and were holy not by nature (since we are all born by nature totally depraved and dead in trespasses and sins, cf. Eph. 2:1-5; Rom. 3:10-18; 8:7-8), but by virtue of His everlasting unconditional covenant with us and our children in Christ; they knew that their children were not unclean but holy, and therefore their spouse was certainly sanctified to them in the sense that they would not be corrupted by this close fellowship with an unbeliever, in as much as their children were not polluted either.

The other alternative interpretation which you offer for this text is quite impossible. A totally depraved sinner cannot be brought to faith in Christ simply by the faithful nurture and instruction of parents. Regeneration is a sovereign work of God's grace (John 3:3-8). God uses such faithful nurture and instruction of parents for the good of His children (and casts away children in the way of the unfaithfulness of parents; Hos. 4:6), but such instruction cannot be of any value to one who is unregenerate. In fact, that God promises to use the faithful instruction of parents for the good of His children is further proof to us that in general, our children are regenerate from infancy (apart from the possible exception of those who are perhaps regenerated much later in life, but even then there is no proof that they were not regenerate at all earlier, and of course in particular the exception of those reprobate who remain unregenerate). If you think it is impossible that a child can be regenerate from infancy, then consider that how early an age David had faith (which is the infallible fruit of regeneration): "thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts." - Psa 22:9. And even more strongly, consider John the Baptist who leaped for joy in his mother's womb when she was in the presence of Christ (Luke 1:41), of whom it says "he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb" (Luke 1:15). Therefore we need not worry if our feeble minds can't comprehend the mysterious and effectual work of God's grace in a baby who is still in her mother's womb, since God's ways are infinitely higher than our ways, and He has given us clear examples in His word of this gracious work.

And so it is when we understand God's everlasting covenant of grace, and therefore the real holiness of our children (with the exception of some reprobate children), we understand why the Canons of Dordt say that godly parents have no reason to doubt the salvation of their children who die in infancy. Indeed we ought not to doubt their salvation, as much as we ought not to doubt the salvation of any member of the church, and perhaps even more so, since such infants have given us no reason to doubt their salvation, whereas we can more easily see the sins of our fellow church members (though even then, and even when they are under discipline, we ought to give them the judgment of charity). And further, the Bible gives no example of any child of a believer who died in infancy who was reprobate, but the pattern with reprobate children in the Bible is always that God allows them to grow up and manifest their wickedness and develop in it (e.g., Cain, or Esau). So, we perhaps have even more confidence in the salvation of the children of godly parents whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy, than the many adult members in the church who perhaps boldly and loudly profess their faith. But we ought not to doubt the salvation of any member.

In Christ,

Sam.

Who will argue with Owen about the atonement?

2011-05-12T20:24:00.000+01:00

Few doctrines could be more important to the Christian than those concerning the cross of our Saviour. And since we know that it is only by Christ's work on the cross that we can be saved, it is especially important for us to consider the question asked by John Owen below in "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ." We must know the answer; did Christ die for:

all the sins of all men,
all the sins of some men, or
some sins of all men.

Let's sit at Owen's feet for a while to hear him bring the Scriptures to bear on this issue:

"Nay, but in dying for us Christ did not only aim at our good, but also directly died in our stead. The punishment due to our sin and the chastisement of our peace was upon him; which that it was the pains of hell, in their nature and being, in their weight and pressure, though not in tendence and continuance (it being impossible that he should be contained by death), who can deny and not be injurious to the justice of God, which will inevitably inflict those pains to eternity upon sinners? It is true, indeed, there is a relaxation of the law in respect of the persons suffering, God admitting of commutation; as in the old law, when in their sacrifices the life of the beast was accepted (in respect to the carnla part of the ordinances) for the life of the man. This is fully revealed, and we believe it; but for any change of the punishment, in respect of the nature of it, where is the least intimation of any alteration? We conclude, then, this second act of God, in laying the punishment on him for us, with that of the prophet, "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned each to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all," (Isa. 53:6): and add thereunto this observation, that it seems strange to me that Christ should undergo the pains of hell in their stead who lay in the pains of hell before he underwent those pains, and shall continue in them to eternity; for their worm dieth not, neither is their fire quenched." To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists: - God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for, either all the sins of all men, or all the sins some men, or some sins of all men. If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God enter into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: "If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?" (Ps. 130:3; cf. Jas. 2:10). We might all go cast all that we have "to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the LORD, and for the glory of his majesty," (Isa. 2:20, 21). If the second, that is it that we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world. If the first, why, then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins? You will say, "Because of their unbelief; they will not believe." But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not. If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death? If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins [Hence, they cannot be saved, SW]. Let them choose which part they will."

We can see that to understand who the intended objects were, we must understand the nature of the atonement. And the nature of this work of Christ will forever elude us if we do not always hold God's perfect justice before our eyes, by which we stand either condemned, or justified, if it is that Christ has satisfied God's justice on our behalf. If justified, then certainly glorified (Rom. 8:30-34), and since not all are glorified, not all are justified, and Christ died only for those who are saved: the elect.

Sam W.

Singing like a Pharisee

2011-04-27T22:27:00.000+01:00

The Pharisees did not simply follow God's commandments at all. They were hypocrites; shiny on the outside, rotten on the inside. To them the law was not spiritual, and their hearts were far from the Law-Giver.

They added to this wicked hypocrisy by not only making up new commandments not found in God's Word, but also condemning others for not keeping those things in order to puff themselves up. And the worst of all, which was no doubt the root of their pride and hypocrisy, was that they taught that righteousness was obtained by means of keeping the law. But only those who have graciously been given the perfect righteousness of Christ are justified in God's sight. The just shall live by faith in Christ's righteousness, not their own.

In contrast, those who believe that they have obtained righteousness by means of their own will, naturally will produce the proud fruit of hypocrisy, rather than the humble fruit of sincerity. Because they believe that their own will makes the difference between them and another, it is natural for them to puff themselves up against others, and insist on burdensome commandments to trip others up, so that they are considered better. So, they love the praise of men rather than the praise of God, because being unjustified, they have not experienced the praise of God in their consciences as righteous in Christ alone, which testimony makes the praise of men worthless and undesirable.

If you want an example of Pharisaic worship today, look no further than the Roman liturgy, or the charismatics (which are actually worse). Some charismatics even think that a person who does not raise his hands and shake and babble and do whatever other ridiculous fad, is totally unspiritual, and probably not even a Christian, or at least a far less spiritual Christian. And woe betide the church which refuses to sing their super-spiritual hymns and choruses!

After all, they say, isn't God always doing a "new thing", and bringing "new revelations", and "new waves" and "movements of the Spirit" (a spirit of confusion and pride, you understand, not the Holy Spirit of God who brings the righteous fruit of self-control, patience, and love which covers a multitude of sins, and by which we humble ourselves and bear with the failings and weaknesses of our brethren). And "sing a new song" they insist means that we must sing their sensational, carnal, and emotive doggerel, while discarding and abolishing the inspired Psalms as deadweight. So, they puff themselves up against those who are content with singing the songs actually inspired by God, the 150 Psalms. It is after all, one of the Psalms speaking of itself (not some other song) which says, "sing a new song".

Who here is the Pharisee? He who sings the songs which God has given to His church, or he who condemns us for refusing to sing songs which have not been appointed by God for worship? And since God is the only one worthy to determine how He must be worshipped, we must not worship in any way other than what He has commanded, and so we ignore the unscriptural commandments of the Pharisaic charismatics, and maintain that their worship is vain because it is not what God has required. By means of their pride, they lay aside the good things which God has commanded. And is this not Pharisaism?

"Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." - Matt. 15:6b-9.
"For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men...Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition" - Mark 7:8,13.

Finally, consider the objection to only singing Psalms, which tries to compare our Scriptural practice to the wickedness, pride, and hypocrisy of the Pharisees, because we don't condemn the singing of all other songs outside the worship service as inherently sinful. To bring other songs before God as worship would be sinful - unless one meant in the sense that we must worship God with everything we think, say or do, and with all the gifts and talents that have been given to us. But is it not plain that there are a great many songs and many other activities that are not sinful to sing or do most of the time, but would be completely inappropriate for the worship service? I may fix teeth all week as a dentist, but I won't do it in the worship service. Similarly a poet, or a musician, or a singer may do a great many lawful things during the week, which would be inappropriate for the worship service. Is it is not placing an unnecessary and even grievous burden on such people to restrict their singing to only the Psalms all the time outside the worship service?

Now, the reason I've written a short article on the subject was to answer these objections, because they were laid against the Scriptural practice and teachings of my church, and they were made publicly, and I felt it would be worthwhile and helpful to defend our practice and teaching, because it is Scriptural, and I want others to see that, and grow in understanding, and for God to be worshipped rightly and given the praise and honour He deserves from His people, and I want to see the errors which oppose this thrown down and exposed, and His people blessed in singing the 150 Psalms in worship, and not burdened with the traditions of men, and the proud craftiness of Pharisaic philosophies.

But I can't help wondering what one hopes to achieve with these objections, if one is not really bothered after all with whether or not we sing the Psalms. Is it all just an academic exercise, or is there a genuine care about how God must be worshipped in spirit and in truth? And for those who treated the issues of God's commandments as mere academia, Christ had words too: "Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers." - Luke 11:46.

Of course, God's law is not burdensome (I John 5:3; James 1:25), but men try to present it as such when they do not desire to keep it, or wish to excuse themselves. There is no fault with God's commandments, the fault is with us whose hearts are sinful and rebel against God's authority in His Word.

Acceptable Worship in Christ Alone

2011-04-25T00:25:00.000+01:00

The only thing acceptable in God's sight is what proceeds from Him alone. God is holy, and the highest good and only source of all goodness. The human heart is always filled with pride, and all kinds of malice, idolatry, wickedness, and envy. There is such evil in the human heart by nature that we cannot fathom it. Nothing good can possibly come from the heart of those fallen in Adam. And though the life of Jesus Christ is present in every Christian, there is only a small beginning, and the totally depraved, vile, and abominable sinful nature remains.

It is entirely evident to me now, as despite myself God has graciously taught me by His glorious law of light and liberty, more of how deceitfully wicked we really are at heart, that for a man to get the insane notion into his head that he can write a song that is worthy to be brought into the presence of Holy God in the congregation of the saints as pure, true, and spiritual worship to the Holy One, is nothing but rotten, foul, and stinking pride of the worst sort - spiritual pride.

David, and the others inspired writers of the Psalms were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God to pen the 150 Psalms, and God has not added to them, nor ever will, because His Word is sufficient, and perfect. Some say that this is a lack of diversity and is unworthy of the God who created millions of species of insect, but He eternally decreed 66 books of the Bible, and every word of it, and all the history recorded therein, all the commandments, who should write them, all the prophecy, and the lives of all those mentioned in the Bible, and of those who penned the books. And He decreed 150 Psalms to be perfectly inspired by His Spirit, to proclaim the praises of the redemption of His elect church by the promised Messiah, for His glory and honour. And He is worthy, not of the lame and blemished to be brought to Him (Mal. 1:6-14), but only for that which is perfect, as He is perfect, to be offered as praise before Him.

First of all, this tells us that Christian worship can only ever be acceptable, by being sanctified in Jesus Christ. The beloved Son of God covers the filthy rags of our pathetic worship to make it acceptable in the sight of God. He atoned for all the impurity, weakness, and carnality of our worship. But does such grace give us license to be proud before the Holy One, and lift up our hearts as if we were acceptable of ourselves? That is what we say (whether we realise it or not) to God, when we offer up the ridiculous writings of mere men as worship. Even the holy Psalms become filthy rags as we try to offer them as worship, so how much more the products of proud hymn-writers, no matter how much derived (or distorted) from Scripture (which God did not appoint to be sung, but to be preached). Such hymns may indeed be edifying, and helpful in their place, but that place is not in worship. It is not a matter of greater and lesser, but of appointed for worship, and not at all.

Shall we sin that grace may increase? By no means. Rather we must, in holy reverence granted by the Spirit of God, repent of our spiritual pride, and seek to worship with what God Himself has given approval, and to do so in spirit and in truth more and more as He causes us to grow by the powerful preaching of the Gospel. Considering our depravity, it is utter foolishness to expect that our own carnal imaginations and reasoning about what God desires in worship should ever be anything other than completely wrong and even abominable in His sight. Instead, we must humbly seek His wisdom, and ask of God in His Word revealed to us, how we ought to worship, just as we must learn from Him how we must pray. Naturally, all our own ideas about spiritual things are nonsense, and worse than folly; even directly opposed to what is godly and righteous.

Furthermore, since Christian worship can only be acceptable in Jesus Christ, knowing that there is one Mediator between God and man, and that He is the only way to the Father, we should know that anything not appointed as worship in His Word is as vain and idolatrous as seeking God outside of Christ. Again, it is idolatry to worship God according to our own ideas about what is acceptable. The Lord Jesus alone appoints how we must worship, just as He alone directs and governs all things in His church. And the church that refuses to submit to His rule, is not His bride, but a whore with which the world commits fornication. To offer anything other than the Psalms of Holy Scripture as worship is nothing less than disobedience to Christ, and seeking to have fellowship with God apart from the Mediator, Jesus Christ, by whom we were given the Psalms.

The starting principle of the godly is that he humbles himself before God, and forsakes his own thoughts, and inquires carefully of God how it is that He must be worshipped. Those who come to the Scriptures with this Christian attitude of humility, and this question, cannot escape the conclusion that there is nothing else apart from the Psalms of Scripture that God ever appoints for us to sing in worship to Him. And so all other notions and objections, no matter how persuasive must be utterly rejected as deceitful and devious lies and temptations of the devil who always seeks to corrupt the worship of God, and whose greatest ally in the church is the sinful heart of man, with all its proud natural reasoning.

"Because the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So they that are in the flesh cannot please God." - Rom. 8:7-8.

The most blind argument that can ever be made against singing the Psalms only, is that it is proud. The idolatry of offering worship that has not been appointed by God is proud. And it is natural that a church which loses the doctrine of the depravity of man, and the holiness of God, and of Christ the Mediator, and in short where Christ is no longer heard in its preaching, and the sacraments are carelessly profaned, and there is no spiritual discipline to remove the leaven of adulterers (for example), that such a lump becomes more and more leavened, so that the worship too is utterly corrupted, in that proud man-made worship is proudly offered, and the sincerity, holiness, purity, richness, and worthiness of the Psalms are no longer heard at all. The voice of the Bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, are no longer heard in such false churches. Where you hear the voice of the Bridegroom however, there you will also hear the voice of His bride, singing joyfully to her Saviour, with the words given to her by God Himself.

Book Review: "Whosoever Will"

2011-04-22T16:07:00.000+01:00

In this book, the author expounds the glorious truth that "every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened." The subject is introduced by means of the words of hymn, which like many such hymns, is technically orthodox, yet usually sung and explained to promote heretical ideas.

In explaining the biblical way to understand, "whosoever will may come," the author first asks to whom is it that the willing may come. The ultimate answer given is God. And the author develops the significance of this answer by speaking about who the true God is in relation to sinful man. The undeniable conclusion for the reader who believes the plain teaching of Scripture is that God Himself must make man willing to come to Him through Christ. The author continually brings the reader back to consider the motivations and desires of the heart behind all our willing and doing, which especially demonstrates the impotence of the sinner, and begging hawkers of a false impotent Christ.

Hoeksema continues on this theme by presenting in great detail and majesty the identity of Christ as the Rest-giver, the Fountain of Living Waters, the Bread of Life, the Liberator, the Light and the Resurrection. In all of these, and especially in the last, it is seen incontrovertibly that the sinner cannot even will to bring himself to this Christ of the Scriptures, but rather Christ is the one who powerfully works in the sinner to bring him to life and make him willing.

"The will to come to Him, therefore, must be motivated by the desire to come to God, the longing for rest, a hunger and thirst after righteousness, a yearning after true freedom, love of the light, and the earnest desire to be delivered from death and to be quickened unto a new life."

This marvel of how God makes the sinner willing and draws him to Christ is explored with simplicity, clarity and precision. Man coming to Christ is shown to be an entirely spiritual act, consisting of "contrition, recognition, aspiration, and appropriation." These four are shown to necessary rely upon the monergistic work of God in drawing the sinner; conviction, illumination, allurement, and sealing. These meaningful terms are biblical explained, always in such a way that these truths are applied to the believing reader, both to comfort, and exhort.

Three important subjects in connection with this are dealt with in the concluding chapters. The author shows that the preaching of the true Gospel by faithful ordained ministers is the means which God uses to draw His elect. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for God's people to hear the word of God in the preaching, because the word of man has no power. Next, the common objection that the doctrine of God's sovereignty in salvation leaves no room for man's responsibility is shown to be the same objection laid against Paul in Romans 9, and not only erroneous, but proud and ungodly.

Finally as Hoeksema speaks of the need to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ, the importance of the ministry of the Word and of membership in the true church is underscored. This teaching about the church is sorely needed. This excellent book is easy to read, written in an engaging style, and deals very helpfully with very important doctrines.

Available from the RFPA bookstore.

Grace in Christ Alone

2011-04-22T14:39:00.000+01:00

"We know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness." - 1 John 5:19. The world does not lie in 'common grace', but in 'wickedness'.

Grace for sinners can only be found in Christ. And therefore, it is only ever particular to those who are elect in Him. Grace is only ever Almighty, because it is an attribute of God, and therefore all who receive the grace of God are certainly saved, as surely as God is God.

If the reprobate receive grace, from whence does this grace proceed? God Himself can only be righteously gracious to sinners because Christ has clothed us in His own spotless righteousness and atoned for our unrighteousness by His substitutionary atonement on the cross. And if Christ died as our fully atoning substitute, how can it be that His cross could do anything less than fully save all those for whom He died, and so how could His cross be extended to any other than the elect alone? The proponents of common grace end up therefore with only two alternatives; to say that there is grace for sinners outside Christ and God is unrighteous, or to say that there is some sort of universal atonement, and in so doing, they fall into the Arminian error, and are in great danger of making the cross of Christ of none effect.

Instead of such nonsense, hear Christ's words in the 69th Psalm:

"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap.
Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake.
Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them.
Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.
For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded.
Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.
Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous."

This teaches that the good gifts which the wicked recieve are given in God's wrath and hatred, not in His love or favour. At least twelve times the NT applies the words of this Psalm to Christ (John 19:28; 15:25; 7:5; 2:17; II Cor. 6:2; John 19:29; Matt. 27:34; 27:48; Mark 15:23; 15:36; Luke 23:36; Matt. 23:38) and there are many more implicit references too. In Romans 11:9, the Holy Spirit also says that the inspired human writer was David, and quotes the Psalm to prove that God's attitude towards the reprobate wicked is not one of love or favour, but of hatred, especially in that David righteously prayed for their table (i.e. the good gifts, such as food and drink and earthly companionship at the table) to be a trap, a snare, a stumblingblock, and a recompense to them.

Now consider the example of the quails given in the wilderness, about which Psalm 106:15 says; "And he gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul."

He gave them the good gift of quails, but it was given in His furious anger, and brought them only destruction. So it is with all the good things the wicked receive. It is not that when we see the rich of this world that we should conclude that they have received more common grace or blessing from God (in this, the doctrine of "common grace" is as reprehensible as the "prosperity gospel"). In Psalm 73, Asaph was troubled by this when he said;

"Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches. Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency. For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning. If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children."

We must learn from Asaph also to go into the sanctuary of God, to humble ourselves and see their end;

"When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me; Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors. As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image. Thus my heart was grieved, and I was pricked in my reins. So foolish was I, and ignorant: I was as a beast before thee."

Let us put brutish thinking away, as Psalm 92:6-7 also instruct; "A brutish man knoweth not; neither doth a fool understand this. When the wicked spring as the grass, and when all the workers of iniquity do flourish; it is that they shall be destroyed for ever:" Here we see that the purpose of God in giving prosperity to the wicked is to harden them in their wickedness, "that they shall be destroyed for ever".

Psalm 37 gives us the same warnings. It is not the blessing of God upon the house of the wicked, but rather, it is His curse (Prov. 3:33). Only the righteous in Christ know the blessing and grace of God. And this blessing and grace is not without effect, because it is God's blessing, and God's grace, and therefore we are saved to the uttermost.

I'll add yet another argument - if good gifts are supposed to be given in God's grace and blessing, and from an attitude of favour, surely the greatest good gift is for us to hear the preaching of the Gospel of Christ. Yet God knows and indeed has appointed beforehand who will believe it and who will reject it. And regardless God brings this Gospel to many who will not believe, knowing that in the way of their rejection, it will bring them greater condemnation on the day of judgment. If God sends this greatest good gift to those who will not believe it in order to bring them into greater condemnation, how can we deny this regarding all the lesser good gifts like food and drink? All these things can only bring greater condemnation because the reprobate employ them in the service of sin, and are unthankful. If He did not will to bring them into greater condemnation, surely He would not preach to them this Gospel! Yet Christ thanks His Father for revealing the mysteries of the kingdom to babes while hiding them from the wise and prudent, though the Gospel is preached openly to both:

Matthew 11:20-27

"Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not: Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment, than for you. And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him."

It seemed good in God's sight, and Christ says "Even so." And we ought agree also with Christ. And if this truth still remains hidden from you also, I will assent with God, "Even so."

"The Generation of the Upright Shall Be Blessed"

2011-02-22T11:27:00.001Z

"Praise ye the LORD. Blessed is the man that feareth the LORD, that delighteth greatly in His commandments. His seed shall be mighty upon the earth: the generation of the upright shall be blessed." - Psalm 112:1-2.

How wrong is Baptist theology? :|

I'm not sure I could put it in a nutshell for you, but let me try an illustration... Do you know exactly what the covenant is?

Even though the covenant of God is a theme which runs through all of Scripture, Baptist theology seriously misunderstands it. If I used the phrase "the church in the Old Testament", would you know what I mean, or consider it an incorrect term?

It is true that the Bible speaks of "covenants", but it also speaks of the covenant of God, which He calls "my covenant" and "the everlasting covenant". It consists most fundamentally in this: "I will be your God, and you will be my people." The church in its strictest sense is the people of God, that is, those and only those included in this covenant of God, who truly believe in the promised Messiah who came 2000 years ago. But of course, there is also the visible church in the world, and we all know that in any wheat field there are weeds which do not belong.

But the people of God existed in the world before Christ came too. And this is why Stephen calls the children of Israel (Acts 7), "the church in the wilderness". Because there is only one everlasting covenant of God, and only one promised Messiah (Greek: Christ) by which it is established, there can only be one people of God from the beginning of history to the end of the world. This is why for example, Paul speaks about a true Jew being one who is one inwardly, not outwardly (Rom. 2:28-29), and that they which are of faith are the children of Abraham (Gal. 3), and why he speaks of the Gentiles being made fellow-citizens who were once strangers (Eph. 2:11-3:6). And since there can only be one God, one Christ, one covenant, and one people of God, then all the promises of the covenant are one in Christ, as it also says in II Cor. 1:20, and likewise in Gal. 3 where it explains that the promises given to Abraham and his seed were to Christ, and all who are united to Him by a true faith (which we know is worked in us by Holy Spirit according the grace of God alone).

But what did the promise of God to Abraham consist of? Not a merely earthly land of Canaan (that was nothing but a picture), but that he and his descendents in their generations would inherit the world (Gen. 17:7; Rom. 4:13), and this is why, for example Eph. 1 and Col. 1 and many other places also speak about the inheritance of the saints. The point is, that everywhere in Scripture that we see a promise of God, we know that it is for those who are one in Christ. And the promise quoted in the Psalm above, just like the promise given to Abraham, is that the children of believers will be blessed, although obviously not every single one of the children (since there are children of the promise and children of the flesh as Romans 9 explains, and the example of Jacob and Esau illustrates - and I recommend you read and study Romans 9 very carefully because it is THE key chapter on this subject, and for various reasons, probably the most avoided chapter in the Bible today).

Since our children have always been included in the church and the people of God throughout all history (and this was signified by the sign of the covenant, circumcision given to the male children - which Rom. 4 says was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith, even though many who were outwardly circumcised were not truly inwardly circumcised), and since there is nothing in the New Testament which would even hint that this has been changed (except that the sign of the covenant has been changed to baptism, for various important reasons because Christ has now come, which is administered to all those who are part of the church, whether they join from outside or are born inside), but rather, many re-iterations of it, such as the particular mention of children by Peter in Acts 2:39 and almost all baptisms recorded in the New Testament were entire households being baptised (except for, obviously Paul who was single, and the Ethiopian eunuch, who was in fact, a eunuch).

I could go on, but the issue that Reformed theology has against Baptist theology is that it Baptists think that a credible profession of faith is a necessary condition for baptism. They point to examples of converts in the book of Acts - but these are converts. Of course it is true for converts to the faith from outside the church, like Gentiles from heathendom, just as much as it was a requirement for them to be circumcised in the Old Testament too. But as regards children born in the church and the people of God, they cannot prove that this is a prerequisite, and it certainly was not in the Old Testament - rather Abraham (and by extension, all believers) was commanded to give the sign of the covenant to his household, because God saves His people in the line of generations. Because He ordinarily saves families as families, not as individuals. You can perhaps see this even in your own family. It is not that children brought up in a Christian home are "more likely to believe", because after all, we are all born equally depraved and at enmity with God, such that unless God changes our hearts by His grace we only reject Him with scorn.

Baptists will often say, "Give me one example of an infant being baptised in the New Testament!" But this is a backwards approach to Scripture. It has already been proven that the children of believers are included in the covenant of God, and the people of God (the church), and therefore must receive the sign of the covenant. The burden of proof is on the Baptist to show from the New Testament where it is taught that children are no longer included in the church of God, and ought not receive the sign of the covenant.

Of course, there is at least one undeniable example of infants being baptised recorded in the New Testament, I Cor. 10:1-2. All the children of Israel were "baptised unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea". And who would dare claim that there were no infants present among the children of Israel when they passed through the Red Sea? And the point of the verse is this: many of those who were baptised were not saved, but became idolaters and were destroyed - therefore take heed lest you fall and flee idolatry (for there are always wicked weeds in the wheat field of God, as I said earlier). Trust in Christ alone, not in baptism or any other thing, and in Christ alone you have full confidence that you are righteous in the sight of God, and will be preserved to the end, and conformed to the image of Christ to the glory of God.

Sam W.

P.S. I should say that since the essence of the covenant is "I will be your God, and you will be my people", it is most fundamentally a loving relationship of fellowship and a bond of friendship with God. Marriage is also described as a covenant, and although we talk about "marriage vows", the vows themselves are not the marriage, the marriage is a bond of fellowship and love, and the joyous relationship within that bond. It is the same idea with the covenant of God, and that is why marriage is called the mystery of Christ and the church (Eph. 5).

And I should also refer you to a comprehensive supply of resources on the subject, because although it is not complicated, when coming from a Baptist background, with Baptist thinking, it can seem difficult to figure out. http://www.cprf.co.uk/covenantbaptismresources.htm

Still the best after 400 years

2011-02-16T13:54:00.000Z

As it happens to be the 400th anniversary of the KJV, I suppose it would be appropriate to explain some of my thoughts on what is perhaps going to be a controversial anniversary. I use the KJV, because it's the version I read and study, and that my church uses, and that English-speaking churches whose heritage is found in the Reformation have used for the last 400 years. There are certainly deeper underlying reasons, which are far more significant.

First of all, I'm not a "KJV-Only-ist" in the sense that I don't believe it is as good as it could be, or entirely perfect, or on par with the text in the original languages (I say this for theological reasons, and because I know a little, but enough generally about the grammatical differences between languages, not because I know anything specifically about Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic). Also because I'm not against other versions in principle if they are faithful translations of the true Scriptures, but the problem with almost all the recent versions which have been released in the number of years is:

1) The biblical and Reformed doctrine of the Preservation of Scripture. They are based upon a couple of manuscripts which differ vastly from the overwhelming majority of other manuscripts, (which the Reformers deliberately rejected as corrupt). One bunch was preserved in a library in the Vatican, and the other lost in a waste-basket in a city that was notorious for the propagation of heresy. If God's word is preserved for the sake of His people, then how could these manuscripts which dwelt in obscurity away from God's people for so long, really be God's word? Especially when they contradict the other manuscripts in so many places?

So, the text which has been preserved and received by God's people throughout the ages is what we should receive, just as Christ received the Scriptures of His day, trusting that God had preserved them. It is not insignificant that the modern-day Arian heretics, who inappropriately call themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses," are strong proponents of these deviant manuscripts.

2) The biblical and Reformed doctrine of the plenary (full) and verbal (each word) Inspiration of Scripture. The more recent translations are mostly based upon a "dynamic equivalence" philosophy of translation. This means that the translators interpret what they think the original meaning of the phrases and sentences were, and then they paraphrase this perceived meaning in a different language. So, then we are not reading God's words, but the words of the interpretation of the translators.

Now the translators of the KJV, were a very godly bunch of men, at the height of the strength of the Reformation, of the calibre (both intellectually, and in understanding of the original languages, and spiritually) that can hardly be found anywhere in these present dark days. But what of, for example, the translators of the NIV? At least one was a lesbian (Dr. Virginia Mollenkott). But also, the translation philosophy used by the KJV translators was "formal equivalence", which means that with as little interpretation as possible, and as little paraphrasing as possible (only enough to retain the original sense taking into account the differences in grammatical structure and word order in different languages), they translated the words of the Bible, and when they had to insert extra words to give the original sense, they put these extra words in italics to show that they were not present in the original (the more recent translations add words willy-nilly with no indications whatsoever). The result was "Biblical English".

It was a peculiar style even then, as much as it is now, being so similar in structure and style to the original Greek and Hebrew phraseology - yet it remains easily understood (if you doubt this, read it, and consider how many foreign mission fields have successfully used the KJV when English was not even the first language). Not only that but they compensated for certain deficiencies and ambiguities in the English language which were not problems in the original languages - such as the use of "thou" and "thee" for "you, singular" and "you" and "ye" for "you, plural". There has not yet been a translation anywhere near as good as the KJV for these reasons, in terms of its precision and accuracy. And it's all because the translators feared God, and took seriously His warnings not to add or take away from His word, and that every word of the Bible is God's word and may not be trifled with.

You may examine these two simple claims yourselves, and make your own judgments.

Sam W.

P.S. More reading materials on this subject can be found here:
http://limerickreformed.com/index.php?option=com_sectionex&view=category&id=6&Itemid=35#catid52
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets.htm#bible
http://www.cprf.co.uk/scriptureresources.htm

The most significant issue (regarding which texts are valid), is not controversial for the Old Testament (the Masoretic text), but concerns the Greek New Testament. This article from the Trinitarian Bible Society deals with this subject comprehensively, and definitively: http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/grktxt.html

Review: Contending for the Faith

2011-02-15T17:44:00.000Z

No other book that I have read has been more helpful in my understanding the present condition of the church world today.

Each chapter of the book treats a separate heretic/heresy in church history, from the very early church all the way up to recent times. It is written in a very easy to read style, despite the complexity of some of the heresies discussed (since every heresy tends to be quite complicated in comparison to the simple truth). Reading it was like sitting with a father, being patiently told the long story of the family's history. Colourful stories and characters are painted in each chapter, which helps not with the flow and enjoyment of the reading, but also in understanding how the heretics, and their heresies developed.

Only the chapter on the Marrow men controversy became a little difficult to follow, but with good reason considering the difficulty of the issues involved. When men attempt the impossible in trying to find common ground between the truth and the lie, it always ends up with confusion. Simple overall principles like this, teaching about the character of heresies, and those who propagate them, were smoothly drawn out of the many examples.

Each chapter, a little story in itself, like every good story, contains important lessons to be learnt. Occasionally the lesson was longer than the story - but always very rewarding. The lessons contain enlightening analyses of the heresies, and bring the light of God's word to bear on each issue. Especially helpful was the distinctively Reformed protrayal of the issues involved. The truth was set very clearly in opposition to what was false or distorted, and the real character and root of the error became clear. Because of this, the book shows the reader where the same errors are found today, and how best to correct them and guard against their reccurance.

The wealth of the specific biblical subjects dealt with throughout this book is truly astounding. People in the confused church world today need to absorb the lessons in a book like this, to know the history of the church, and how God has led her and preserved her, and caused her to confess Him more and more clearly and fully throughout the ages. It is a terrible shame when we don't learn the lessons of history, and of incalculable help to us when we do.

I wish all the professing Christians that I know near where I live would read this book and see things as clearly as they are presented in it. It's available from our own Limerick Reformed Bookstore for the Republic of Ireland, and from the CPRC Bookstore for the UK and the rest of Europe, and from the RFPA for America and the rest of the world.

Sam W.

Selling Out Scripture for Evolutionism

2011-02-11T01:37:00.001Z

"It is something like a case of an honest, God-fearing grocery store owner being robbed at gunpoint by a murderous crook. Investigating the incident, the crook tells the police that the store owner gave him everything from the store, while the owner says that the criminal boldly threatened his life. The policeman, content to adopt the crook's version, tells the store owner that he must have been under the influence of a powerful narcotic when he gave all those things to the crook, or that his description of the robbery cannot be taken literally. The owner really meant that his gift to the robber can be construed as robbery because his conscience so smote him when he saw the poverty of the crook that it compelled him to give the store's contents to the crook. So theistic evolutionists are ready to sell out Scripture for evolutionism, and they do it by explaining that the scriptural narrative of creation cannot possibly be taken literally."

Such is the verdict of Prof. Herman Hanko in his section on evolutionism in his unique book on the history of heretics in the church over the last two thousand years, "Contending for the Faith" (http://www.rfpa.org/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=23&products_id=114). I'm amazed at how vivid and accurate this illustration is!

Wresting Scripture to Make "Free-Will" Seem Biblical

2011-02-09T14:46:00.000Z

II Pet. 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

I Tim. 2:3-4 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Those who attack salvation by grace alone, by the unbiblical doctrine of "free-will" often use verses like this in an attempt to deceive the unwary who do not read their Bibles as they ought and check the context in which verses are situated.

It ought to be said at the outset however, that it is the common practice of heretics to point to short verses here and there in which the main thrust of the context is not the subject at hand. When we come to the Bible with a specific question, we ought to first go to those parts of Scripture which clearly deal with the question head-on - not those which may touch on it briefly when dealing with a separate issue. Some parts of Scripture are more difficult to understand than others, and we must go to the most clear passages first, and interpret the less clear passages in their light, according to the rule, "Scripture interprets Scripture". Those who studiously avoid doing this are following the practice of heretics which the Holy Spirit describes in the same chapter as one of the verses above:

II Pet. 3:15-17 "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness."

We'll return to this portion of Scripture later, but for now notice, "the unlearned and unstable wrest" Scripture - in particular "things hard to be understood", of which there are "some" in Scripture; so not all Scripture is hard to be understood, and even those difficult parts may be understood far more easily and clearly, when we follow the practice advised by the Apostle's warning here: interpret the more difficult in light of the more clear passages.

So then the first question we must ask in this controversy is which passages especially deal with the issue of salvation by grace alone, and the issue of "free-will"? This is what people refuse to do. Romans speaks at length about human depravity, and salvation by grace alone because it is in this letter that the subject which is dealt with most clearly and fully. No wonder then that Arminians studiously avoid chapters 8 and especially 9 of this letter (not to mention the rest of it to greater or lesser extents).

The letter begins by stating its intention to set forth a summary of the Gospel, and immediately declares God's wrath against all humanity who are presented as those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness (not who have a "free-will" to accept or reject the truth). The second chapter continues to abase all humanity, explaining that in terms of wickedness there is no difference between the Jew and Gentile, religious or irreligious - all are condemned, even self-condemned with or without the Law, all are alike "under sin". Any supposed "free-will" to do moral good in any sense, is utterly destroyed by this emphatic statement that all are "alike under sin". There is therefore none who makes himself to differ in the righteous eyes of God with respect to His wickedness. In chapter three, the subject continues to be human total depravity, and the Holy Spirit unleashes a barrage of proofs from the Old Testament to throw mankind into the dust and annihilate his pride and supposed "free-will". "There is none that doeth good, no, not one". If it is a good thing to accept the truth, or accept a gift of salvation and grace from God (and it is), then man is utterly incapable of it - indeed the disposition of his entire being is wholly against any such choice or decision.

Only when man is put in his right place, does the Holy Spirit begin to explain the atonement of Christ, and the righteousness of God that is without the works of the law (which are the only works that "free-will" can do). Those whom Christ has died for are freely justified, by their faith in God who justifies the ungodly. God does not justify those with "free-will" to accept or reject Him, He only justifies the ungodly, that is, those who are actively opposed to Him. Length prevents us from examining everything in any detail, but suffice to say that the letter goes on to prove that this is how Abraham was justified, before the law even was revealed through Moses, and before even he was circumcised - and that salvation and grace are given by the promise of God (which Hebrews also speaks about at length), not by means of an offer which man may accept or reject by means of his "free-will" (because then, as Paul already proved, man would certainly only reject such an offer, being ungodly and under sin, ruled by Satan), and because if the promise of God relied upon man's "free-will" it could not be sure to all the seed (Rom. 4:16). Because the promise must be sure to all the recipients of it, it is granted by the necessary means faith, so that it is all by grace (not by anything man does, which would mean that man could merit with God, which is impossible and a blasphemy).

Since we know the certainty of the promise of God to us by faith, the letter goes on to explain the blessedness of those who are justified by means of this gift of faith, and of the certain results of Christ's atonement for us. It is an effectual atonement because Christ took the punishment for our sins (while we were His enemies - so far were we from making ourselves acceptable above others by means of "free-will"), so that "much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him" and "when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." There is the effect of the atonement, all those for whom Christ died have been reconciled to God, and therefore much more then, are saved from wrath, and are saved by His life. This salvation of all for whom Christ died is completed, as Christ said "It is finished" on the cross. Because this is the unchangeable effect of the cross for all those for whom Christ died, it is impossible that Christ died for everyone, because not everyone is saved, and many are already in hell suffering for their sins, because Christ did not suffer in their place.

The letter moves on to compare and contrast Adam, explained that as all in Adam are imputed with Adam's sin and are condemned for it to death, so all who are in Christ are imputed with Christ's righteousness and are therefore justified by it, and saved to eternal life! And the imputation of Christ's merits as opposed to Adam's demerits, causes much more grace to abound, than the offences of sin, so that our blessedness is far greater than Adam's original state before the Fall. And it is clear that just as "free-will" did not give us a choice whether to be condemned in Adam or not (but God determined it alone), so "free-will" cannot give us a choice whether or not to be justified freely in Christ.

The obvious objection to such concrete exposition of salvation by grace alone, is that should we therefore sin, so that grace may abound all the more? And this is emphatically denied, and declared impossible, because all those for whom Christ died are united to Him in His death and resurrection by the Holy Spirit, so that all who are saved will certainly walk according to the new life which they have received by grace - in obedience to God, being freed from slavery to sin and Satan, but a servant of God. Finally the freedom of the will is spoken of! But it is not freedom to do anything whatsoever to accept or reject God, but rather freedom from the slavery of sin (in which there was certainly no "free-will"), to be a servant of the living God (it even removes the freedom to reject God which is no freedom at all!) - that is true freedom! Yet who has this freedom? Those who have been given eternal salvation by the promise of God and the death of Christ and who have been born again by the Spirit of God who applies this salvation to all the elect - and no-one else, because no-one else is saved.

The next chapter (seven) proves that the law can no longer condemn those who are united to Jesus Christ by the Spirit of God, since He died, and the law has no hold over those who have died (which is why a person who remarries is an adulterer if their previous spouse is still alive). The Holy Spirit explains the purpose of the law (which is not to tell people that they have "free-will" to accept or reject God's grace - which is not only not the purpose of the law, but not part of God's law at all anyway, which if broken in the slightest, condemns to hell), which is to give the knowledge of sin. The law does not give the knowledge of "free-will", it gives the knowledge of sin; so that when you read, "THOU SHALT BE PERFECT AS I AM PERFECT", you do not conclude that we therefore have the "free-will" to be perfect as God is perfect, but rather you conclude that we are wretchedly depraved and sinful, condemned by this law to hell, and emphatically do NOT have "free-will".

Why must we be condemned by the law? To seek our salvation only in Jesus Christ, and flee only to Him, and trust only in Him. To guard us from ever daring to trust in our own "free-will" which is totally depraved and can do nothing except condemn us further. This was the Apostle Paul's attitude to the law, because he had received the Holy Spirit (and therefore saved eternally), he sees that, even having been born again, having the new life of a Christian, he cannot keep the law, but fails miserably and has only a small beginning of obedience, the law therefore pushes him to Jesus Christ, and keeps him trusting only in Christ for salvation, and makes him more and more thankful for such great salvation, so that he never trusts in his "free-will" or his ability to keep any of God's law.

Paul goes on to contrast the flesh and the Spirit - nothing good proceeds from what we are naturally, even the carnal mind is enmity against God (i.e. "free-will" is only the enemy of God, not a friend), nor can it ever be subject to the law of God. To be spiritually minded however, is life and peace. And if anyone does not have the Spirit, they do not belong to Jesus Christ, but conversely, if anyone does, he belongs to Christ and has eternal life which cannot be taken from him. The letter continues to exalt the blessedness of all true Christians, teaching us that the faith which we have (by which we can call God our Father) is by the witness of the Spirit in us, and that since we are children (and know it by the Spirit of God), we are therefore heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ. We cannot inherit hell, but only the new heavens and the new earth, with Christ. So, Paul begins to explain how the creation will certainly be renewed, as surely as we know that we are God's children, and that Christ has died for us.

And as if we didn't get the point already in all this so far, he goes on to speak of the intercession of the Spirit for us which cannot be uttered, because our prayers are feeble and ignorant, and how Christ who knows the hearts, and the mind of the Spirit prays for us according to the will of God (which we only know in a very small part). By this we are given us confidence that there is no greater intercession for us in heaven, nor must we dare seek any which would be a blasphemy against Christ whose intercession is greater than all because He purchased our eternal salvation with His blood, and is very God of very God.

Considering all this, we know (and this is not a sin of presumption, but the confidence of faith), that God works everything for our good, and that nothing whatsoever, not even our wicked and pernicious "free-will" which remains in us battling against the Spirit, can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ. Again, Paul reminds us of the unchangeable effect of the atonement: if God is for us, who can be against us (because God alone is almighty)? Who can lay anything to the charge of us who are God's elect (which we know by faith)? God is the one who has justified us. Who is the one with the right to condemn? Christ is the Judge, who is also the one who died for us, and who rose again, and now is making intercession for us. So, all those for whom Christ died, must and will go to heaven, and cannot go to hell, as surely as God cannot deny Himself and is the only Almighty.

I haven't got to Romans 9 yet, but already "free-will" is obliterated by the Word of God, and condemned as a wicked enemy of salvation and of the Gospel of grace which is the Gospel of Christ alone, not of "free-will". Study the chapter yourself, and notice verse 16 which specifically denies that the will of man determines whom God saves. The chapter explains how God's promise has not failed with respect to the many Jews who do not believe in Christ, because His promise was never to every single one of the children of Abraham, but to the elect, who are chosen unconditionally, not on the basis of anything good or evil that they do, or their will or any other work, but by God's sovereign mercy whom He grants to some from eternity and withholds from others. And it answers the objection (an objection which is only raised because this unconditional sovereign election and reprobation in predestination is what the passage is exactly teaching) that it is unrighteous for God to elect without any respect to any form of merit whatsoever (whether "free-will" or anything else).

Much as I would like to continue at least to the end of chapter 11 (after this the subject deviates too far into a different though related area - gratitude for this salvation), We must return to what the verses first quoted mean:

I Tim. 2:4 speaks of God's will to save all men. First of all, it is abundantly clear from everywhere in Scripture that God's will is almighty (because He is almighty) and that whatsoever He wills certainly comes to pass. It is also clear throughout Romans which we have just discussed, that God elects some to salvation and not others. God wills to save some men and not others. But of course this verse can't contradict that because God cannot lie. And the explanation is simple. "All men" used in this context refers to "all kinds of men" just as it means in verse 1 of the same chapter. This is why context is so important in correctly understanding Scripture. "All men" in verse one cannot mean that we are expected to pray for those who are already in hell, for example, or for the Antichrist, for example. The context explains that it is speaking of men from all social strata, even kings, because God is not a respecter of persons (because He's the One who determines everything about us anyway), and Christ has redeemed people from every tongue, tribe, and nation (Rev. 5:9). That verse is simple to understand once the context is understood, and once it is considered that Scripture cannot contradict Scripture.

II Pet. 3:9 is perhaps even simpler. The passage is all about the second coming of Jesus Christ. The first part of the verse tells us that Christ is not slow to return, but rather He is longsuffering towards us and, so that before He returns all must be brought to repentance. It is obvious from the long clear passages discussed above that God will not bring every single person to repentance (as we know from history too, such as Judas, or the Canaanites, or the wicked before the flood, to name a few!), and we know that God's will is always almighty (Psalm 115:3, for example). It is also clear that if Christ were to wait for every single person to be brought to repentance, then He would never return! The purpose of the verse is to assure us that Christ is certainly coming, and will not delay! The obvious meaning is that "all" in this context refers to "all the elect". The elect are the only ones who are ever brought to repentance as we saw from Romans - so this verse really ought to be simply understood. The "us" in the same verse qualifies the "all"; so that the meaning is "all of us, the elect".

It has to be said that very often when heretics try to twist verses into their own false doctrines, the verses prove too much for them. There's a beautiful irony here, and a demonstration of the power of God's Word. Such verses lead them into impossible contradictions with the rest of Scripture. If that verse really meant that God willed for not a single person to perish, then first of all, that means He is not all-powerful (because many do perish), and secondly, what about the clear examples of where God did will for certain people to perish, such as Judas, the son of perdition. Or take for example, Pharaoh and his armies, God says very plainly that He raised them up in order to display His great power and salvation to the Israelites when He drowned them in the Red Sea. Or what about the Canaanites whom God sent Joshua to destroy? If God did not will for the antediluvians to perish, why did He send a Flood to kill them all? If Christ does not will for any to perish on the Last Day, then why does it describe Him treading the winepress of His fury? A terrifying quote from Nahum should help us to think rightly about how God views the wicked who are not in Christ:

"God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vegeance on His adversaries, and He reserveth wrath for His enemies. The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath His way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of His feet." - Nah. 1:2-3.

We ought to remember that sometimes when Scripture speaks of the Lord being "slow to anger" it is speaking of His longsuffering towards His saints (which II Pet. 3 that we quoted earlier says, is salvation), and otherwise it is speaking of Him storing up wrath against the wicked for the Day of Judgment, when their cup of iniquity is full, and the wicked world is ripe for judgment. If God willed for no-one whatsoever to perish, there would never be a judgment.

People who stubbornly misinterpret Scripture by trying to use difficult passages to explain the clearer parts, end up tying themselves in knots and unable to understand the Scriptures at all, because one error leads to another. This is because the truth is simple and united and one - as God is. The reason we find it so hard to be corrected when we are plainly in error, is our pride. This is why we must have humility (which is the fruit of the Spirit, not of "free-will") when we come to Scripture, and come to it with other believers, knowing that in two thousand years of the church since Pentecost, there have no doubt been many much wiser saints than ourselves who have studied Scripture, and recorded the good fruit of their studies (even though we must test everything, because even the most spiritual Christian makes errors).

Pharisees think that Sabbath-keeping is legalistic

2011-02-07T12:23:00.000Z

Perhaps there is no other thing which modern Evangelicals associate more with the Pharisees and their legalism, than Sabbath-keeping. But was it not the case that they distorted what true Sabbath-keeping was about? Listen to this compelling argument from Walter Chantry's "Call the Sabbath a Delight!"

"At this time in our Lord's earthly ministry [Matthew 12:1ff and Luke 6:1ff], Jesus was pledged to fulfill all righteousness even under the Mosaic judicial and ceremonial laws. It was He alone who perfectly lived by the system given under Moses. He and His disciples could not sweep away any Old Testament law as irrelevant if Jesus were to fulfill His mission as Messiah. Our Lord is not suggesting to the Pharisees that it is permissible to break the law because the law must be changed.
"To the contrary, Jesus is accusing the Pharisees of a fundamental misunderstanding of the Sabbath law. Their views were entirely mistaken and could not be defended from Old Testament Scriptures. They had blundered seriously in handling Biblical passages on the law. Our Prophet is defending His practice because it is in complete harmony with Old Testament standards. He had not in any way disregarded the Sabbath!
"This observation is of the highest significance in our day. It is important because some breathe the spirit of the Pharisees and would reintroduce their stern demands within the modern church. However, even more shocking than those who wish to reconstruct a Pharisaical attitude toward the Sabbath are those who wish to abolish the Sabbath in our day. These people suggest that the Pharisees were right, not Jesus. They try to persuade us that if one day in seven must be kept holy to the Lord, it is inevitable that we will take up the Pharisees' way of doing so! They imply or declare that the only possible way to keep the fourth commandment is in the way of Pharisaical strictness. Their opinion is that the only alternative to the rigidity of the Pharisees is total abolition of the day. Such a position leads to the conclusion that the Pharisees were correct in accusing our Lord and His disciples of Sabbath-breaking. This approach toward rescinding the fourth commandment is an intolerable sacrilege! Jesus' pattern of behaviour is in full compliance with the Sabbath law."

In this masterful book, Chantry also powerfully brings Scripture to bear against some of the most common, and superficially convincing arguments against keeping one day in seven holy to the Lord:

"Some of the Continental Reformers and Reformation creeds reason something like this. Christians have ceased from seeking God's favour by good works and have instead relied upon the works of Jesus Christ to save them. This rest of the Christian from a works way of salvation is akin to God's ceasing from his works at creation. The Old Testament weekly Sabbath prefigured this resting upon Christ. Now we have the reality and no longer need the shadow. However, Christians, too, need a day of worship; but the Lord's Day is not identical with the fourth commandment Sabbath.
"At best this is a jumble of poorly worked-through ideas. At worst some of the Reformers have misled us at this point. It appears that some Reformed thinkers could not escape the influence of one of their leading doctrines even when it did not apply to the subject which they were handling.
"Some who are newly come to the doctrines of grace find God's sovereignty in every Bible verse and feel compelled to expound that theme in every message. A few Reformers seemed to feel compelled to discuss justification by faith when defining the nature of Sabbath-keeping. To them ceasing from works could only mean to cease to rely on works religion to be saved. However, the parallel does not hold in Biblical passages on the subject.
"God ceased from glorious and righteous works when He entered His rest. He entered rest satisfied and delighted in the work He had done. When the Jews were called to work six days and rest on the seventh in imitation of their Creator, it was not being suggested that they try to earn salvation by their obedience to the law. Such a course was nowhere recommended by Moses! Galatians 3 explicitly denies such a position. All mankind was given six days to do all his own legitimate works. On the seventh he was to cease from these (good) works to worship and serve the Lord. Man is to share God's delight in divine works. He is to enter God's rest, which has nothing to do with a former miserable works religion."

Throughout this short, yet thorough book, the common New Testament passages misused to deny that the fourth commandment is applicable to Christians are explained. Romans 14:5-6, Col. 2:16-17, and Gal. 4:9-10, all speak against Christians keeping the ceremonial and judicial laws which were shadows and have been fulfilled with the coming of the reality which is Christ. He proves that the fourth commandment was not included in these ceremonial or judicial laws, and that these passages have in question the feast days and special sabbaths pertaining to them. Rather, the fourth commandment is a moral one, and was laid down, not by Moses, but by a creation ordinance as was marriage.

He also proves conclusively from various passages (and especially with a watertight exposition of Hebrews 3:1-4:11) that not only is the fourth commandment still applicable to Christians today (as with all the other moral commandments), but also that the day has been changed by the Lord of the Sabbath, Christ, to the first day of the week (which was the day Christ entered His rest), instead of the seventh (on which God entered His in the beginning). The book demonstrates the grievous error of antinomianism proving that the moral law of God was not abolished. It also traces much of the attitude against Sabbath-keeping to the Scripture-dividing heresy of dispensationalism which says that most of the Bible is not really applicable to the church in the New Testament. In connection with this, he proves that keeping the law was never a means of salvation; rather, salvation by grace through faith has always been the way (his simple clear arguments on this point are stunning). Positively, Chantry patiently explains the purpose of the law, both the moral law, and the ceremonial and judicial laws.

Besides this essential framework, he gives wonderful pastoral instructions regarding the motive of all law-keeping - not in order to merit or earn anything, but out of the overflow of sincere gratitude in love for God. He exposes in detail the error of the Pharisees and gives wise and pastoral warnings against it, using the clear examples given by Jesus Christ. These parts of the book make it especially a worthwhile read, and also very beneficial even for those who may already be convinced that "there remaineth therefore a Sabbath for the people of God." - Heb. 4:9. If you are not convinced of this doctrine yet, then read the book, and I doubt you will have an argument remaining - indeed if your authority is Scripture alone, you will most likely "Call the Sabbath a Delight". :)

The book is available on Amazon here. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Call-Sabbath-Delight-Walter-Chantry/dp/0851515886/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1297080652&sr=8-1

The Victorious Word Conquers Violence

2011-02-05T11:34:00.001Z

"I will preach, speak, write, but I will force no one; for faith must be voluntary. Take me as an example. I stood up against the Pope, indulgences, and all papists, but without violence or uproar. I only urged, preached, and declared God's Word, nothing else. And yet while I was asleep, or drinking Wittenberg beer with my Philip Melanchthon and Amsdorf, the Word inflicted greater injury on popery than prince or emperor ever did. I did nothing, the Word did every thing. Had I appealed to force, all Germany might have been deluged with blood; yea, I might have kindled a conflict at Worms, so that the Emperor would not have been safe. But what would have been the result? Ruin and desolation of body and soul. I therefore kept quiet, and gave the Word free course through the world. Do you know what the Devil thinks when he sees men use violence to propagate the gospel? He sits with folded arms behind the fire of hell, and says with malignant looks and frightful grin: 'Ah, how wise these madmen are to play my game! Let them go on; I shall reap the benefit. I delight in it.' But when he sees the Word running and contending alone on the battle-field, then he shudders and shakes for fear. The Word is almighty, and takes captive the hearts." - Martin Luther.

Of all the things I've read by Luther, this is my favourite. I quoted it from Prof. Hanko's "Contending for the Faith" which is an historical-biographical history of the rise of heresy and development of the truth. This book is available on the RFPA website. It's also available from the Limerick Reformed Bookstore too for people in Éire.

Luther's 101 biblical ways to destroy "free-will"

2011-01-31T23:42:00.000Z

I thought about quoting various different parts of Martin Luther's "the Bondage of the Will"; a book which could have been appropriately named, "101 Scriptural arguments to destroy 'free-will'". I especially liked how Luther demonstrated that the Semi-Pelagians were far worse than the old Pelagians in two important respects, that the former were far more dishonest and crafty about their assertion of merit, and also attempted to purchase the grace of God at a far cheaper rate. It was very encouraging to read Luther unleashing the "thunderbolts" of Paul against both by the teaching of free justification.

I would also have loved to quote in full, Luther's demonstration that salvation by faith alone destroys "free-will" - since many today think that the modern protectors of "free-will" nevertheless still teach justification by faith alone (as they claim that they do). Luther considered the two wholly incompatible, and the one disproves the other. John Wesley's doctrine of justification was very different to Luther's, who no doubt would have called it justification by "free-will" alone!

Suffice to say, that Christians today ought to read this treasure of the Reformation, and learn what "the essential issue" of the Reformation was (as Luther called it), and how much of Evangelicalism today has in principle reaffirmed the most fundamental doctrine of Rome. I will quote one of his most succinct, simple, and characteristic arguments against Erasmus:

"Rom. 7; Gal. 5: the power of the 'flesh' in the saints disproves 'free-will'

"I forbear to insist on the Achilles of my arguments, which the Diatribe [of Erasmus] proudly passes by without notice - I mean, Paul's teaching in Rom. 7 and Gal. 5, that there is in the saints and the godly such a mighty warfare between the Spirit and the flesh that they cannot do what they would. From this I would argue as follows: If human nature is so bad that in those who are born again of the Spirit it not only fails to endeavour after good, but actually fights against and opposes good, how could it endeavour after good in those who are not yet born again of the Spirit, but serve under Satan in the old man? And Paul is not here speaking of gross affections only (which is the universal expedient by which the Diatribe regularly parries the thrust of every Scripture); but he lists among the works of the flesh heresy, idolatry, contentions, divisions, etc., which reign in what you call the most exalted faculties, that is, reason and will. If, now, the flesh with these affections wars against the Spirit in the saints, much more will it war against God in the ungodly and in their 'free-will'! Hence in Rom. 8 he calls it 'enmity against God' (v. 7). May I say that I should be interested to see this argument punctured, and 'free-will' safeguarded from its attack!"

You can purchase "the Bondage of the Will" by Martin Luther from the online bookstore at: www.monergism.com. They even have in eBook format if you're that type.

Sam W.

What did it feel like to be born again?

2011-01-31T23:00:00.000Z

(I was asked this question by a man from a Pentecostal background and responded as follows:)

‎"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." - John 3:8.

The first work of regeneration, that implanting of new life is a secret unconditional and sovereign work of God, as that passage teaches. We can only see that it has happened from the fruits of it, namely faith in Jesus Christ, repentance from sin, and the beginning of the new obedience to the will of God. Just as we cannot be conscious of the exact moment of our natural conception (yet we know certainly it happened, as we live and breath today), we cannot conscious of the exact moment of our spiritual birth (even though afterwards we experience the results of it - spiritual life). Before we are born again, we are not spiritual, but dead in trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1-10), and so cannot believe:

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - I Cor. 2:12-14.

So, before the new birth, we cannot believe and everything in us, our mind, will, affections, and strength, wages warfare against God:

"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." - Rom. 8:6-9.

And this same passage also teaches that if someone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they are not a Christian at all, because they do not belong to Christ.

All these passages prove that it is the Lord's gracious will and pleasure alone that determines who is reborn, and who is not. Without the Spirit, our will, and every other faculty of our entire being is under slavery to sin and Satan - and that is the natural condition of man since the Fall.

Because I see that I believe all this, that Christ has paid for my sins on the cross, and I therefore belong to Him, I am assured that He has given me His Holy Spirit. And this assurance is further strengthened as I see that the work of His Spirit in me, not only causing me to believe, but also to live a new life for Him. Since it is God who testifies in my conscience through the faith He works in me by His Spirit, there is nothing in all the world that can shake that confidence - not even certain Pentecostals who think that speaking in unintelligible languages is the necessary proof of the new birth:

"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:" - Rom. 8:15-16.

This is the primary difference between the true Christianity of the Bible, and the false religion of the Roman Catholic church. In one there is full assurance, confidence, peace and joy - and in the other, there is nothing but terror of punishment, and dread of presumption.

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God." - Rom. 5:1-2

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." - Rom. 8:38-39.

It was these same convictions, worked in Martin Luther by the Spirit of God, that led him to boldly declare in face of the fierce opposition of the false church of his day, "Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God."

This assurance of eternal salvation, the forgiveness of sins, and fellowship with God, is the foundation of the Christian life - without it, there is no Christianity; because it is the work of the Holy Spirit in every true Christian. But it is also true that many Christians for various reasons at various times (false teachings, and their own sins, etc), have a weak faith, and do not enjoy this assurance to the same degree - but these are exceptions in terrible temporary circumstances. The chief means by which God strengthens our faith is the preaching of His Word. This is why preachers who think that their calling is to try to terrify the congregation as much as possible, are not being obedient to their calling which is:

"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins." - Isa. 40:1-2.

This same message of comfort which strengthens God's people, and cultivates thankfulness and godly joy in them, testifies against hypocrites and unbelievers, and hardens them against the truth which they hate. The salvation of the church always means the destruction of her enemies.

Which doctrines are not important?

2011-01-30T23:42:00.001Z

"What sins can I commit, and yet still be saved?" I hope you recoil in horror from such an ungodly sentiment. But many "Christians" today have this very same attitude when they say, "What is the least I must believe correctly, and yet still be saved?" It's like saying, "I don't really care about God at all, but I'd like to not go to hell."

Every child of Satan wants to be saved from hell, but we don't want to be saved from sin, because we love our sin - unless we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God.

People are just looking for a cheap ticket to heaven, to avoid hell, but what they don't realise, or don't think about, or simply refuse to believe, is that the Holy One who cannot abide sin is in heaven, and heaven is not an escape from Him. Hell is to be in the presence of God and not hidden in Christ.

Is truth and righteousness unimportant? Then God is unimportant. One cannot love God, without loving truth and righteousness. God is truth. God is righteous.

People misuse the words, "Oh, I don't believe in religion, I have a personal relationship with God." You have a personal relationship with God do you? Yet you don't care about doctrine, or living a holy life according to His commandments? How absurd. As if doctrine and obedience belonged to "religion" and not also to "relationship", and as if "religion" was necessarily devoid of "relationship"!

But as for the saints, "we love Him, because He first loved us." - I John 4:19.

I don't want your empty music anymore

2011-01-29T14:55:00.000Z

"Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols. But let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream." - Amos 5:23-24.

These verses make me think back to the time I spent in a kind of broad, wishy-washy, shallow, and worldly Evangelicalism.

Music to stir the emotions was always a big deal, but I think that was just trying to compensate for the lack of real depth and genuine spirituality. It was as if there was an unspoken philosophy that maybe if people's senses are distracted enough with excitement they won't notice the superficiality of it all.

I say this because there was a disinterest in the truth of God, even sometimes an active attempt to keep it vague and unclear. There was an apathy differentiating between right and wrong, and godliness was seen as an optional extra; maybe even inadvisable since it might make the worldlings feel uncomfortable in their worldliness.

Well, whatever they might think, God is not pleased with such hollow worship. He is righteous, and loves righteousness, and demands that we judge between true and false, right and wrong, good and evil. We must set ourselves apart from everything that is against His good and beautiful standard of His own infinite moral perfections, and devote ourselves entirely to Him in loving gratitude for what He has done for us - and especially for Christ's sacrifice for our sins.

If only Scripture was more treasured in the heart:

"Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts. Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God. Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded. Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up." - James 4:3-10.

The living God is the covenant God

2011-01-25T14:15:00.001Z

The following is a excerpt from Herman H. Hoeksema's "Reformed Dogmatics," volume 1. This work is available on the Reformed Free Publishing Association website.

"The truth of the Trinity means that God is the living God.

"As the living God he is the covenant God. The idea of the covenant is not that of an agreement, pact, or alliance. It is a bond of friendship and living fellowship. Friendship is that bond of fellowship between persons, according to which and by which they enter into one another's life in perfect knowledge and love so that mind in knit to mind, will to will, heart to heart, and each has no secrets from the other. It presupposes a basis of likeness, of equality, for only like knows like. On that basis of equality, it requires personal distinction: for without this there is only sameness; there can be no fellowship. Both the equality and the personal distinction are in God because He is triune; the most absolute equality exists between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, for these three are one in essence. In Him there is personal distinction between the three persons subsisting in the one essence.

"Thus the three persons of the holy Trinity completely and perfectly enter into one another's life. Their fellowship is infinitely perfect. They have no secrets from one another. There is no conflict between them. Their relationship is one of perfect harmony: the Father knows and loves the Son in the Spirit; the Son knows and loves the Father in the Spirit; the Spirit knows and loves the Father through the Son in Himself. The living God is the covenant God. That is the great significance of the truth that God is triune and that these three distinct persons are the one, only, true, and eternal God."

Faith: the Only Cure for Pragmatism

2011-01-11T14:09:00.000Z

(Written to a man defending R.C. Sproul's supposed co-operation with Arminians, who also defended the supposed claim that Whitefield and Wesley co-operated)

"How can two walk together except they be agreed?" By dissimulation, certainly, by dishonesty, and by craftiness indeed, but not in true fellowship. If two believe fundamentally different messages (even diametrically opposed messages, which are not only incompatible, but antithetical to one another), how can they co-operate in the work of spreading such messages? They can only co-operate in spreading one or the other. And always in such attempts to co-operate, it is the truth that is compromised for the sake of lies. Why? Because God is jealous for His glory, and will not share it with another. He will not bless efforts which profane His holy name.

But we serve Jesus Christ alone, and therefore have no need for the co-operation of men. It is God who preserves, defends and spreads His Gospel in order to gather and sanctify His church from every tongue, tribe, and nation. So, if we are His instruments in bearing witness to this Gospel, what aid could we possibly need in addition, since the power of God is with us? The temptation for whatever reason to co-operate in church work (which is primarily the preaching of the Gospel) with those who preach a false gospel ought to be condemned by seeing with the eyes of faith that whatever power or resources they might seem to offer is nothing is comparison the thousands upon thousands of the chariots of God, which we must learn to see by faith.

The sinful compromising philosophy of pragmatism only seems attractive when we take our eyes off Jesus who is reigning at the right hand of the throne of God. The arm of the flesh seems tempting only the eyes of the flesh, not to the eyes of faith, and so there are many today who need reminded of this and exhorted to repent and cast off entirely the help of the wisdom of the princes of Egypt which is no help at all, no matter what it seems.

Our Glorious God's Law of Love

2010-11-24T17:35:00.000Z

Christians keep the Law out of loving thankfulness for being saved by grace alone without works; not the Jewish ceremonial laws which were fulfilled and abolished by Christ, our true "Passover Lamb" - but the moral Law, which cannot change, just as God does not change. In contrast, those "antinomians" who despise God's moral commands show that they know nothing of the grace that they boast about.

God loved us, and chose us to be saved from our sins by our Lord Jesus Christ, who purchased us with His precious blood, and atoned for all of our natural wickedness and active disobedience. Since He has redeemed us from hell and all the power of sin, both body and soul, how can we call Him, "Lord," if we do not do what He tells us! We are bondservants of Christ, and of righteousness now, not slaves of the devil to do his evil will.

What was the end to which God graciously predestined us? To be conformed to the image of His Son (Rom. 8:29)! How could be that this conforming does not begin in this life, here and now, as we are indwelt by the Spirit of God, joined to Jesus Christ by the bond of faith? Does the Holy Spirit not do any work in us today to make us holy? He is Almighty God, and He is faithful! Therefore, He will certainly produce the beginning of this new obedience in us, even though our sinful flesh is still with us in this life.

By grace alone we are saved, and this cannot be without radical effects in our lives. Our obedience is not the root of our salvation (which Christ finished 2000 years ago on the cross), but it is certainly the fruit. Both those who teach that we are saved by means of keeping any law (such as Arminians who teach that we are saved by the correct use of our supposed "free will"), and those who teach that grace is a license to disobey God's commands are wicked heretics who deny the power of Christ's work of redemption.

Against this, we boast only in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The fruit of the Spirit displayed in every true Christian's life testifies to His effectual redemption of all those who believe. By God's grace, our pastor preaches this glorious Gospel of grace alone. You can listen to his sermons online, but better yet, come to the worship service, because it is everyone's duty to worship God, and join a biblical church because He is worthy. He is most definitely worthy.

"And These Have No Root..."

2010-10-06T12:08:00.000+01:00

What about the parable of the sower and the seed that falls on the rocky ground? It is possible for someone to have a certain type of faith (shallow/temporary), and yet not be saved?

That "type of faith" is not really faith at all. It is a counterfeit faith - one which appears to be genuine, yet is not; obviously, since it has no root. If one does not have the root of faith (that bond with Christ through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), then all the confession and appearance of true faith in life and doctrine are nothing but hypocrisy. Such people are "white-washed sepulchres".

The Good Shepherd did not teach this parable in order to terrify His sheep, but in order to condemn the goats. It is a classic case of stretching the analogies within a parable too far, if people claim that this is speaking about a "type of faith" which is indistinguishable from true faith except by observing the fruit of it (this only serves to make people examine their works in order to find justification, and live in such a way that their perseverance depends upon their works, and removes all their confidence and comfort, so that in the end they cannot even begin to pray as Christ taught us, "Our Father...", so plagued are they by doubts, since our works are always imperfect and polluted with our sin). We understand, even from the parable itself (and the clear testimony of the rest of Scripture) that Christ was speaking of people who appear to "believe for a time", but fall away. The explanation is that they had no root - and therefore we conclude that they actually had no faith - not even a certain kind of faith.

When Christ says that they "believe for a time", it is incorrect to jump to the conclusion that He is teaching that they truly had faith. Rather, the context is the appearance to others. As we observe plants growing up quickly and then withering, so we observe people who initially seem to have faith, but then fall away. Christ delivers us from any doubt or terror by explaining that they withered because they had no root - they were not planted into good soil, and therefore they could not truly believe - they could only give a good show before men - but not before God or in their own consciences (because God leaves the reprobate without excuse before Him, and condemns them in their consciences).

But by the certain knowledge and assurance of the faith which we have in Jesus Christ, we know and are assured by the Spirit in our consciences, through hearing and believing the preaching of the Gospel, that God declares us righteous on the basis of His atoning sacrifice and merits on our behalf.

The solution to ungodliness in the church is never to preach in such a way that doubts are encouraged (rather doubting ought to be condemned because it is sinful!), but Christian discipline must be practised so that those who live impenitently are officially declared outside the kingdom of Christ, unless (and until) the Spirit brings them to repentance. This is the God-ordained means for removing dead branches and to keep wicked leaven from spreading, and also for chastising the elect for their sanctification.

This is important because except one is assured of their eternal salvation, they do not have true faith in Christ, and will not be saved. Such a person cannot pray, or experience anything of the Christian life, because all our blessedness, and the fruit of the Spirit in our lives flows from faith, which itself flows from our election and the atonement made for us by Christ, which the Spirit applies to us individually and corporately, bringing us into communion with God, from whom all our spiritual life flows, and without whom we are nothing but dead branches. All must be exhorted not to doubt, but to believe and be comforted in Christ.

Furthermore, it is wrong, unhelpful, and greatly damaging, to tell a person that their sorrow over doubts or even the slightest work of theirs, be it the smallest tear or sigh, is any part of the means of their justification before God. We are justified by faith alone without any works. True, when we do good works, we are encouraged and our assurance is strengthened, and when we fall into grievous sins, and walk in disobedience for a time, we are plagued with doubts (through the agency of Satan, which God righteously rules over in order to drive us to the cross for admonition, comfort, and power to repent), but the only way to repent is to first of all exercise the faith we have in Christ alone. Even though works strengthen assurance, our assurance itself first of all comes from, and is even an integral part of our faith.

A vital part of a pastor's calling is this: "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her, that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned: for she hath received of the LORD's hand double for all her sins." - Isaiah 40. It is an essential part of the everlasting covenant of God, that God makes known to us, in love and fellowship through the Mediator of the covenant, Jesus Christ, that He is our God, and we are His people. We are united to Jesus Christ by means of the bond of faith produced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and therefore bound to God in the covenant of grace. Since we are in this covenant of grace, in fellowship with God, God makes known to us that our sins are forgiven, and that we have been saved eternally.

This is the fundamental practical difference between Rome and the Reformation (which of course is rooted in wholly opposite theologies, one resting on free will, the other upon the sovereign free grace of God); one cultivates doubt, the other cultivates faith. And let it be known, that doubt is the work of Satan who seeks to destroy God's people, but faith is the work of the Holy Spirit who effectually seeks their salvation.

The only way to experience the blessedness of this assurance is by hearing the biblical preaching of the Gospel by ministers of the Word, who have been officially appointed to this glorious ministry, in a true church (which is known by the marks of a true church, biblical preaching, sacraments and discipline). To hear this biblical preaching is to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd, and only in this way do we experience to blessings of being in the covenant of grace growing in fellowship with God.

"Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God." - Psalm 92:13.

Defence of Christianity Against a Proud Scoffer

2010-09-28T11:00:00.000+01:00

In answer to a believer's query about science and the Bible, I referred to this website: http://www.creation.com.

A scoffer replied by comparing the highly qualified and intelligent authors of the material on this website to "The Banana Man" (so quickly that I concluded that he had in fact not even looked at the website), and advised me to only pay attention to "REAL scientists", by which I supposed he meant, those who attempt to explain the world in a materialistic framework regardless of how awkward and self-contradictory the fit becomes. To answer this challenge for the sake of the believer who had first made the query, not for the professed atheist (since if one denies the Bible outright, it is impossible to prove anything to them, and irrational to try to do so, and therefore argument with them is unprofitable), I responded:

Absolutely, of course I prefer the theories of scientists who dare not contradict God, who created everything and was there when all was created. Since those who deny Him, who is the Author of all truth and history, are nothing but willfully ignorant fools (Rom. 1:18ff), then of course I would be insane to take their proud imaginations seriously. If they deny the very first principle of all knowledge, then surely all their speculation is worthless. What need could I possibly have to pay heed to their vain attempts to ignorantly explain what is now seen, within such a self-contradictory and godless framework, intent on calling God a liar. But while men can lie and be deceived, it is impossible for God to lie. And those who call Him a liar are calling themselves, who are mere creatures, the Authors of truth; yet without God there is no truth. But they were born as wicked men only a few short years ago, are finite, and their lives are like the flower that fades and withers away quickly; they were not there to tell how things came to be. But God is from everlasting to everlasting, infinite in power and knowledge and wisdom, He was there, and none else.

The professed atheist then attempted to criticise the Christian faith on the basis that:

It only believes what reaffirms its presupposed ideas.
These ideas cannot be based upon "tangible evidence".
It is therefore, "deliberate stupidity".

Again, lest anyone be fooled by these empty and self-contradictory words, I responded:

Blind and godless Empiricism is also a presuppositional belief. The difference is that there is no man who has not heard the witness of God in their own consciences (and therefore their denial of it is universally self-evident, no matter how much evil men deny it), and since the Lord has graciously granted me faith, I believe God's testimony which is greater than any other, and indeed is the only way in which I can test all other witnesses, and see the world as He does, and apart from which, all my own interpretations would be merely groundless stabs in the dark. Hence, I have nothing to discuss with such lying fools as you, unless you assert that God alone is the authoritative Author of all truth, and denounce your own feeble understanding, in order to learn from Him how we are to interpret the data and evidence which He has set before us.

Not content with this (of course), the God-hater dug himself a deeper pit, by denying that his empiricism was presuppositional, and calling it rational instead (as if the latter did not demand the former)! And then he gave a definition of empiricism which he presented as a vindication of his philosophy, rather than its very indictment, which it actually was. He then also claimed that his criticism of Christianity was "kind and gentle", and that he was speaking for my benefit, and asked me to do the same as if he were willing to be persuaded (but of course, only upon his own presuppositional grounds of godless materialism, which is the very thing I refuse to do, and would consider wholly irrational), as if I had not already laid before him his errors. Since the believer responded by giving his own definitions of materialism and of theism, which were unsatisfactory, and did not display the folly of the professed atheist, nor the Bible's evaluation of such scoffers and their godless philosophies, I finally responded at length:

Materialism: Trusting in your own experiences and your own interpretations of those experiences, while willfully denying God's trustworthy testimony.

Biblical Theism: Trusting in God alone, by whose Word all our experiences must be tested and interpreted.

"I'd really hope someone would extend a hand of knowledge to me" - the Roman Catholics once put the Bible on their forbidden book list, but to you, I am sure it is readily available - even in your own language. How much less excuse then, you have for inventing your own theories about why the world is the way it is, when you refuse to learn from the Creator who is the only One whose testimony can be trusted altogether.

The natural world indeed speaks powerfully about the greatness of the divinity and power of God (Psalm 19; Rom. 1:18ff), and God has even given us eyes, ears and all the other senses by which we can perceive the created things and thereby know of the wisdom, divinity, and power of the One who created them. This witness is sufficient to leave us without excuse for our wickedness in not glorifying Him as God. No wonder then that many in our day deny this.

Yet if we deny this, by what means do we suppose we can trust anything we observe? What reason would we have to put any confidence in our senses? Would we not simply then we left adrift in nihilism, perhaps "I think therefore I am", and all our experience may be simply a dream? Therefore the atheist contradicts himself, when he speaks of empirical rationality, because if there is no God who does not lie, and who has created all things, and who has given us these senses, then there is no reason to presume that anything is real. This is why atheism, contrary to the popular, yet foolish misconception of it, is actually the death knell to all scientific endeavour, while true Christianity is its very foundation. And this is true both philosophically, and historically. Science was given birth by Christianity which believes in one Almighty God who created all things and orders them according to natural laws which only He may alter by miraculous works which display His sovereignty over these laws. Without this, all is merely proud, blind speculation, as I said.

But He has given a far greater light in the Scriptures by which we might see things as they truly are and understand God's purpose for them in His eternal will to glorify the Son through the salvation of the company of the predestinate by Him. By these Scriptures we understand the origin of the world, and the history of it (including the flood by which the world that then was, perished by water), and the purpose of it for the glory of God. And by these Scriptures too, it is revealed to those whom God grants the gift of faith, how we are to be saved from the terrible wrath which we deserve - and there is no greater blessedness than to have been given the knowledge and assurance of this. Those who believe these Scriptures are the only ones who can really tell about why things are the way they are (but even then, only to a very limited extent), and why things work the way they do.

Furthermore, the study of things as they currently are and as they currently work, cannot tell us how things were in the past, or even how things will be in the future. In Scripture this notion is explicitly denied (II Pet. 3), because God did not leave things to continue as they were from the beginning, but everything changed at the fall of Adam, and about 1500 years later, this wickedness had manifested itself so universally that God destroyed the world by water, in order to preserve the church, and so the world that we now see is the aftermath, and quite different. If a bomb causes a building to explode in to dust, do we suppose that we can tell by looking at the aftermath how things were beforehand? Maybe certain things can be speculated upon, but all is vanity if it is denied that the explosion ever occurred.

This is one example of the proud vanity of those who speculate upon the past.

As for the future, if one denies God's providence in upholding the world by the word of His power (just as they deny that He created it by the word of His power), then they again have nothing but groundless inductive reasoning to go by and it is folly also to presume that all things will also continue as they are. But Bible tells us that though we ought to plan ahead, we ought to do so in the fear of God and prayer, because we do not know what a day will bring forth. We cannot say what will happen tomorrow because it is God who is the author of history not us; we can only say that if the Lord wills, such and such will happen (James 4:13-16), and we must study Scripture to understand the will of God, and we trust in His good providence for His people, knowing that He works all things for the good of those whom He has loved with an everlasting love (Rom. 8:28ff).

The Bible explicitly condemns this notion too in the same passage (II Pet. 3), as coming from the mouths of scoffers who deny the Flood and the first coming of the incarnate Son of God. It explains that Christ will certainly return on the last day, to end history and destroy the world, this time by fire, and to judge the living and the dead. And it explains also that Christ is not slow in coming, but He is carrying out the Father's will, that He will not lose one of those whom the Father has given to Him (how could He since He is omnipotent and has paid fully for their sins by His own infinitely worthy sacrifice? - John 6:37-40; Rom. 5:9). So He is not willing that any should perish; He will bring all His elect to repentance and faith before He returns in judgment.

I have written this in defence of the Christian faith against the scoffers which were prophesied beforehand, which were ordained to this condemnation, but I hope that God would bring all who read this to repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, rather than for greater condemnation to be poured out on them for denying it - but if that is the Lord's will, then so be it.

I hope that believers readers will understand more fully that the Christian faith has nothing to fear from scoffers who irrationally boast about their rationality. As our Canons of Dordt say in head 3/4, article 4:

There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.

It is sometimes amazing to observe what proud boasts men make with only their mere glimmerings of natural rationality, and how they use it, as with all their remaining "wholly polluted" faculties, in the service of sin and the devil, endeavouring with all their powers to hate God will all manner of contrived blasphemies, and to oppose the work of Christ in the salvation of His people. But every observation of this, rather than puff us up, should instead remind us that we are no different except for the grace of God, and so we ought to take occasion to be more humbled, and to be more grateful to God, and exalt Him alone.

The Irresponsibility of the "Evangelical" Supper.

2010-09-14T15:41:00.001+01:00

It was the view of the Reformed churches that the Lutheran churches were indeed true churches (in contrast to Rome and the Anabaptist fanatics), but seriously erred on the issue of the Lord's Supper, and therefore believers ought to join Reformed churches, and leave the Lutheran ones. Because of their erroneous view (such that they would not say that Christ's physical body was not present), they ended up teaching the false doctrine of "the ubiquity of Christ's human nature". This was contrary to Scripture, and since a human body by definition cannot be ubiquitously present, when this error developed, it became a form of a denial of the reality of Christ's human nature.

The Reformed churches had a simple and easily understandable answer to this Lutheran view (and indeed the Roman view): the ascension of Christ. It could not be denied that Christ had ascended bodily into heaven, and therefore His resurrected and glorified human body is in heaven, not earth, and therefore not physically present in the Lord's Supper. Instead, they explained, Christ is really spiritually present, and we truly partake of Him only by faith. Except for the actual presence of Christ, the reality of the communion of Christ which is taught in Scripture (I Cor. 10:15-22), and the terrible judgments upon those who eat and drink unworthily (I Cor. 11:17-34), could not be maintained. In contrast Zwingli denied Christ's presence altogether, and as such Luther refused to even shake his hand (a refusal which I believe is too often criticised too harshly).

Today, many "Evangelical" churches are like Zwingli, teaching that Christ is not present at all at the Lord's Supper, and that it is merely an empty remembrance. Consistent with this, they do not guard the table with the oversight of godly elders, to keep away those who live in impenitence in life or doctrine. It is as if "anything goes" is the motto, since permission is given to the individuals themselves to decide whether or not they may partake, regardless of whether they live openly as hypocrites, or promote heresies, or are unbelieving heathen - the table is opened even to atheists. As if there was no communion of Christ whatsoever, and as if God can be mocked. No wonder then that such churches are becoming weaker and weaker in their doctrine, and becoming overwhelmed by ignorance and all manner of heresies - especially Arminianism.

The Lord's Supper is explicitly covenantal - it is a part of our living in fellowship with God in Christ by the Holy Spirit. Therefore we know that Christ is spiritually present in fellowship with us at His table - and so the ungodly may not join in this holy fellowship, and all who do so will receive cursing, not blessing. When Christ took the cup, He said, "This cup is the new testament [lit. covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you." When we take this cup and this bread, we are professing that we, together with all those who eat and drink with us, are partakers of this new covenant together under His headship as His body, and that Christ's blood has been shed for all who partake.

Therefore those who partake are set apart (sanctified) from the condemned world of wickedness as the body of Christ, the church for whom Christ poured out His blood (Eph. 5:25-27). And therefore when an ungodly hypocrite takes this cup and bread, they are counting the blood of Christ as a worthless common thing - a thing that is powerless and that fails to truly cleanse from sin. In effect they slander and blaspheme the Son of God, trampling Him underfoot, as if He is not able to truly and effectually save His beloved people from sin, even though He poured out His precious blood for us on the cross to pay for all our debt of sin. And this is what is referred to in this passage - listen and tremble to the threatenings of God against those profane His name in such a manner, and the serious exhortations to persevere in the faith, especially by assembling together!

"Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." - Heb. 10:25-31.

And when those who demonstrate themselves to be living ungodly lives or professing damnable heresies are welcomed by the overseers of the flock (the elders) to this holy table and holy sacrament are guilty of permitting and promoting this blasphemy!

The blood of Christ is not a common thing. The sacrifice which Christ made on the cross confirms the new covenant in His blood. It is sealed. We, His elect people, are reconciled to God - and the evidence is plain before us, in that we have the Spirit, and know the forgiveness of our sins in our own consciences. This covenant cannot be undone by the rebellious will of man, because the will of man is not more powerful than the oath of the immutably faithful God sealed in the blood of His Son. The sinful will of man is broken and defeated by such omnipotent faithfulness, love, mercy and grace. Once Christ has made atonement for us before God, and clothed us in His perfect righteousness, it is impossible for the Holy Spirit not to come and change us powerfully from the inside out - no matter how stubborn and rebellious we are towards God. While we were yet His enemies, Christ died for us. Being therefore justified by His blood, how shall we not also be saved from wrath through Him (Rom. 5:1-12)?

If there are any who demonstrate by their life or doctrine to be unsaved, then they demonstrate that there are not members of this invisible true church, and that not one drop of Christ's blood was shed for them, and it would be a horrible evil for the elders in a church to knowingly allow such people to dare to partake of the bread and wine which are signs and seals of the covenant made in His blood and by His body broken for us. They may be saved people, for the Lord may bring them to repentance, but until He does so, they would add to their impenitence this grievous blasphemy by participating in the Lord's Supper. By doing so in such an unworthy manner, they say that Christ died in vain, as a hopeless, powerless sacrifice. But the prophet Isaiah tells us:

"Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities." - Isa. 53:10-11.

No wonder then that Paul teaches that those who eat or drink unworthily bring condemnation and judgments upon themselves - for God not only punishes the wicked for this, but He also chastises His people to bring them to repentance. Therefore if it is the Lord's will, may the "Evangelical" churches be delivered from this horrible blasphemy and denial of the efficacy of the cross of Christ by such gracious yet painful chastisement. But if He will not bring them to repent of this, may they know that judgment will come upon them, especially upon the irresponsible and ungodly elders who allow this, and may they know why such judgment is coming from the good hand of our holy and righteous God who will not be mocked.

Denominations and the Unity of the Church

2010-08-23T20:28:00.001+01:00

Since the time of the Reformation of the sixteenth century, by which the outward bond of the Romish hierarchy was broken, and the Church returned to her position of liberty in Christ, the Church in the world has been and still is divided into many denominations and sects. This was to be expected. Always there is the carnal seed in the Church in the world. False teachers must needs sneak into the Church and inculcate their false doctrine into her members, seducing them to a carnal life. The manifestation of this evil may be suppressed and covered up by the power of an outward hierarchical yoke, but as soon as the yoke is removed, and the Church recognises no other bond than that of the Word of God, it is bound to reveal itself. Hence, what is called Church in the world is hopelessly divided. Every denomination has its own creed, every sect its own particular doctrine. Those that call themselves undenominational, or those that sail under the slogan, "No creed but Christ," insist upon their own peculiar doctrinal hobby perhaps more than those that adhere to and confess their creed.

Now, this division of the the Church into many different denominations and sects is frequently, but falsely, called the multiformity of the Church. It is argued that in all these denominations is found the holy catholic Church, so that they are, essentially, all one in Christ. It is further argued that all these different churches with their different creeds have the truth as it is in Christ. Only, they all know in part, and none of them can claim to know and proclaim the truth in all its purity. Hence, they are all imperfect manifestations of the true Church. And as they present different aspects of the one Gospel, and all reflect the abundant glory of Christ in their own way, they represent the Church in its multiformity. They are to be compared to so many spokes of one wheel: all these churches are centred in the hub, which is Christ, yet none of them has actually reached the centre. They all point to Christ; they strive to reach His fulness; but they are all imperfect. In the consciousness of this imperfection, no particular church on earth dare claim to be the pure Church in distinction from others. Rather, we must assume the position that the Church in which we have our membership is, together with all the others, but one imperfect form and manifestation of the holy catholic Church, no purer than others.

This conception of the multiformity of the Church on earth is as pernicious as it is false.

It is false, because it denies that the pure preaching of the Word of God is, indeed, the distinguishing mark of the true Church. According to this view, the truth of the Gospel is vague and ambiguous. Scripture cannot serve as a clear and definite criterion to determine where the truth is confessed and preached. Hence, the preaching of the sovereign grace of God and of absolute predestination together with the Arminian error of man's free will constitute an approach to the truth; both are aspects of a truth that lies on a higher plane, too high for us to grasp. If one Church believes in infant baptism, and the other opposes this truth, while a third must have nothing of "water baptism" at all, they are all fundamentally agreed, only, they are striving to reach a height of truth that is beyond them. In such a view there is no room for discipline exercised upon those that introduce false doctrines. But this is quite contrary to the whole Word of God which everywhere exhorts us to stand fast in the truth, and to watch against the false prophets and teachers, that would seduce the saints from the way of righteousness. False this view is, too, from a historical viewpoint. For it is simply not true that all the existing denominations and sects represent so many forms of the Church, simultaneously striving to attain to the fulness of the truth in Christ.

Such is not their history.

That history is not to be compared to a movement along the spokes of a wheel towards its hub.

It does not present the picture of a number of different churches, equally imperfect in their apprehension of the the truth as it is in Christ, but simultaneously approximating it.

On the contrary, it was a development from a definite starting point, along a straight line, from which, however, under the influence of the carnal element in the Church, in the course of time, many departed, to follow after their own philosophy, and to establish various denominations and sects.

From the beginning of the new dispensation, the one, holy, catholic Church was built upon the foundation of the prophets and the apostles of which Jesus Christ is the chief corner stone. In the doctrine of the apostles and prophets, as contained in the Holy Scriptures, was clearly indicated the line along which the Church must develop and grow in the knowledge and grace of her Lord. And along this line of revealed truth there was, indeed, development, but always in the face of much opposition by heretics. These heretics did not innocently wander from the path of truth: they were evil men, motivated by the flesh, loving the world, and seeking to seduce the Church from the way of righteousness, and thus to lead her to destruction. Thus the Scripture always presents them, and ever warns the Church against their seducing influence. The apostle Paul exhorts believers to grow in the knowledge of Christ, "that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive." Eph. 4:14. And the apostle Peter warns the Church against false teachers that shall arise, "who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." II Pet. 2:1-3.

Hence, the history of the Church is a constant struggle to maintain the truth over against the inventions of evil men. It is the history of progress in the face of opposition, of constant deformation and reformation.

It presents the picture, not of spokes in a wheel, but of one central line of progress from which many lines more or less sharply diverge.

In these divergent lines, one dare not see the true multiformity of the Church of Christ. The lie is never a form of the truth.

It is the sacred calling of every believer to seek and to determine, in light of Holy Scripture, where the central line of the truth runs, and ever to remain on that line, or to return to it. In other words, it is his most solemn duty, to join himself to the purest manifestation of the Church in the world, and with her to remain.

This does not mean that the believer who takes this calling seriously imagines that no one is saved outside of the particular church in which he has his membership. But it does mean that he abhors all deviations from the truth as it is in Christ, and that he refuses to go along with those that move in the direction of the false church.

Only the truth of Holy Scripture may be his criterion.

Where the Word of God is preached, there is the Church!

Quoted from Hoeksema's Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, "The Triple Knowledge". From pages 243-247, treating the doctrine of the communion of the saints (LD21, Q55).

Revivalism: A carnal discontent with the biblical means for church reformation

2010-08-15T18:04:00.000+01:00

"Revivalism and the unceasing desire for revival in the church all come from the desire for a 'quick fix' for the church's problems and weaknesses. Rather than insisting on the necessity of true holiness, of living faith in Jesus Christ, and of sincere repentance for sin, the desire is for some excitement which will give the appearance of bringing the church back to her spiritual moorings, however temporary such excitement may be. Rather than the hard work of preaching the gospel and of calling for these things in the church, the easy way is sought."
- Rev. Ron Hanko (2009) "Another Look at the 1859 Revival in Ireland", British Reformed Journal, 51, p26.

Revivalism brews when the preaching of the gospel in a church falls to the ground, and is replaced by vain stories, amusing platitudes, and entertaining nonsense, and the sacraments are corrupted by no longer being explained biblically in the preaching, and church discipline is wholly neglected, such that the most profane adulterers and idolatrous unbelievers are not only treated as if they had nothing to fear on the Day of Judgement, but are regularly, and unashamedly welcomed to the Lord's table.

People in this environment often don't see that the solution to these problems is for the church to diligently and zealously return to Scripture, not to seek the misguided and ignorant enthusiasm and excitement of Revivalism. And if the church opposes the biblical protests for her to correct her doctrine and practice in these areas, then believers must flee and seek to join a church which does submit to God's Word. An institution which rejects the authority of Scripture is not a true church of Jesus Christ at all, but a syngogue of Satan.

We are naturally lazy and weak, and prone to every kind of carelessness and foolishness because of our sinful nature. We are prone to not believe in the power of preaching of the Word of God, and instead search for all manner of unclean gimmicks, godless tools, and every other kind of imagined means instead of the means that God has appointed for us in His Word - which is primarily biblical expository preaching. In this way, Revivalism is actually a lack of love for the truth, despite all the passion it boasts of. Love must be demonstrated in action, and if heartfelt passions do not lead one to search the Scriptures and insist on its authority alone, then such passions are an abomination before God. All our passions and the thoughts of our minds (along with every other aspect of our beings) must be conformed to the image of Christ through the knowledge of God which is eternal life (John 17:3).

Yet it is also God's sovereign decision whether a church falls further into apostasy or reforms (and we have no right to insanely protest against His good and perfect will). It is nothing but pride, rebellion, and stubbornness, stemming from a stiff neck, to pray for the Almighty, sovereigng and only wise God to change His mind (which is impossible for Him to do). Our calling is to submit to His will and to be "reformed, and always reforming", and to join churches which manifest the marks of a true church, and to leave whatever institution which claims to be a church yet does not bear the marks of it, when it refuses to hear godly biblical protests.

May God give His beloved elect believing saints in Limerick, and throughout the world, the grace to do so.

Logic and the Use of Language

2010-06-30T16:13:00.000+01:00

Logically speaking, is a metaphor a self-contradiction (a lie)? If I say, "God is light" (I John 1:5) - and since light is a part of creation while God is not - am I telling a lie?

If one doesn't understand language, one would have to conclude that I have committed a logical fallacy. But a child can see that I was not being illogical or irrational. And yet again, if a man were looking for a way to condemn me, he might say that I was teaching a form of pantheism, and that I am irrational - he might even be able to convince others with his argument if my statement was taken out of context and told to someone who was unfamiliar with how I would deny pantheism vehemently.

I've learnt recently that such a disregard of the conventions of language, coupled with the pretence of being logical, is a tactic commonly employed by those who are searching for a way to condemn someone. This perverse tactic is commonly used by atheists trying to "debunk" the Bible as self-contradictory. A cursory read through the classic "Skeptic's Annotated Bible" confirms this. It is their number one strategy. It is a Satanic strategy, because Satan is the accuser, the slanderer, and the father of lies.

While not being naive, our attitude ought to be to seek to understand a person's words in a positive way. Extreme caution is required to guard from judging or condemning too harshly or unjustly. We ought to begin with the assumption of a person's innocence until they are proven guilty. A good understanding of the conventions of language and literary devices is important, and these things are usually understood somewhat intuitively at a rudimentary level from a very young age by all people unless they have a particular communication disability.

We ought to look at the context of what a person has said to try to understand their intended meaning. There may be a few possible meanings to their words (although usually the ambiguity is removed entirely by the context), and it would be wrong to immediately jump to the meaning which would condemn their words. If there is any doubt or ambiguity, the person themselves must be asked to clarify what they mean. This is why our Heidelberg Catechism says, regarding the ninth commandment:

Question 112. What is required in the ninth commandment?
Answer. That I bear false witness [a] against no man, nor falsify [b] any man's words; that I be no backbiter, [c] nor slanderer; that I do not judge, nor join [d] in condemning any man rashly, or unheard; but that I [e] avoid all sorts of lies and deceit, as the proper works [f] of the devil, unless I would bring down upon me the heavy wrath of God; likewise, that in judgment and all other dealings I love the truth, speak it uprightly [g] and confess it; also that I defend and promote, [h] as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor.

[a]: Prov. 19:5,9; Prov. 21:28
[b]: Psa. 15:3
[c]: Rom. 1:29,30
[d]: Mat. 7:1ff; Luke 6:37
[e]: Lev. 19:11
[f]: Prov. 12:22; Prov. 13:5
[g]: 1Cor. 13:6; Eph. 4:25
[h]: 1Pet. 4:8

I can think of many occasions in which I have not put this into practice as I ought. I pray that we would all put this into practice more and more.

The horrific blasphemy of an dishonest offer from God

2010-05-24T16:50:00.002+01:00

This is a response to the quote-mining of a once staunch supporter of Calvinism, who has now started to prolifically promote the self-contradictory theology of the "free offer". This is idea that even though God has eternally willed only to save some, that nevertheless He sincerely and earnestly desires the salvation of all without exception, and expresses this desire in the preaching of the Gospel, which they suppose to be an invitation to, or offer of salvation in Christ (who they nevertheless believe died only for the elect). I'm aware that most sensible people will already see the absurdity of this position, but nevertheless, here is the quote:

"The Gospel is to be preached indiscriminately to the elect and to the reprobate: but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been taught of God. (Isaiah 54:13) God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, but the ingratitude of the world is the reason why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few." ~ John Calvin.

John Calvin heavily criticised how the Romish theologians would dig through the writings of the early church fathers to find and pull out the dung instead of the gold. I don't think he would be impressed with your attempt to do the same with his writings. In his later days, when he wrote specifically dealing with the subject against a heretic, he said:

"God is not like a mortal man, who is ever flexible and variable, and changes his mind and purposes every hour! Why, the very thing against which the monk so violently fights is that the adorable God is ever of one mind and consistent with himself!" (p. 178).

"We, however, with greater reverence and sobriety, say ‘that God always wills the same thing; and that this is the very praise of His immutability.’ Whatever He decrees, therefore, He effects; and this is in Divine consistency with His omnipotence. And the will of God, being thus inseparably united with His power, constitutes an exalted harmony of His attributes …" (p. 179).

The command to repent and believe, and the promise of salvation to all who believe is certainly not a universal invitation - if it were this would mean that God has a universal will for all without exception to be saved, and whatever God wills is done, because He is always faithful to Himself in the exercise of His omnipotent power.

This doctrine that the Gospel is an invitation militates against total depravity because for the invitation to be universal, every hearer must be equally capable of responding to the invitation. But we believe that humanity is dead in trespasses and sins, and cannot respond apart from the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit. How can God invite sinners to come to Him, when He has not given them the power to come?

It also contradicts unconditional election, because if few are chosen, then the others cannot honestly be invited to that for which they have not been chosen. It is a cruel, dishonest and unjust invitation that invites someone where the invitor has already eternally decreed that they cannot come. How can God invite sinners to come to Him, when He has decided that they cannot come?

It tears apart limited/particular atonement, because a man cannot be honestly invited to banquet in which no place has been prepared for him, and where no room or provision has been made for him. That would be a vile, evil, wicked and abominable invitation. How then, can our righteous God invite sinners to come to Him, when He has not paid for their sins by the death of His Son?

God will not offer that which He has willed eternally not to give. Throughout all Scripture, the Gospel is never preached as an offer to all without exception. The preaching of the Gospel to all without exception is a command to repent and believe, and an unconditional promise that those who believe are saved eternally.

"The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." - Jer. 31:3. The love of God is as unchangeable and eternal as He is (Mal. 3:6).

Since Christ is loved before the foundation of the world (John 17:24), then so too are all who were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4). Before Jacob was born, he was loved by God, and likewise, before Esau was born, he was hated by God. There is no hatred in love, and there is no love in hatred. Denying these things and saying that God loves those who are not chosen in Christ, and sincerely desires their salvation (despite not having chosen them) is a horrible blasphemy against the righteous character of God. If God loves wicked-doers who He has determined not to save, what does that say about His love? Or what does that say about His Being? Can a righteous God love the wicked, except He makes them righteous through Christ's atonement? To say so, is to God loves wickedness, and that God is wicked. A more absurd and devilish blasphemy could hardly be contrived except by the inspiration of Satan who delights in tearing the church apart by heresy.

Judge for yourselves, but I say (not myself alone, but also the ministers of the churches I belong to) this nonsense that God loves everybody, desires to save everybody, invites everybody to salvation, offers salvation to everybody is a denial of the Scriptures, and an Arminian heresy condemned by the Synod of Dordt 1618-19. And they are many others who take this position too.

Who is wise?

2010-05-06T10:07:00.000+01:00

Malcolm Forbes says, "The dumbest people I know are those who know it all."

But Christ said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32. Not as if anyone knows it all (I Cor. 13:12), but we must confess what God has revealed to us about Himself, or else we are denying Him. So who do we believe? The Bible which tells us that God is the truth and He has revealed Himself to us and the rest of the world is in prideful ignorance, or Malcolm Forbes who claims that those who confess that they are not ignorant, are stupid?

And Christ also promised, "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into *ALL TRUTH*: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you." - John 16:13-15.

The false spirit of Pentecostalism opposes the Spirit of truth, because it is a spirit of falsehood, ignorance, and confusion. It says, "doctrine divides! be content to live in uncertainty! simplicity is godliness! knowledge is the source of pride because 'knowledge' puffs up! humility is to profess ignorance! emotionalism is true spirituality! the intellect is unspiritual! love the lack of knowledge! do not seek wisdom! the truth is harsh! speaking the truth is unloving! love is a feeling! worship is a feeling! don't read the Bible too much because the 'letter' kills! logic is unspiritual! mystical self-contradicating confusion is spiritual! etc." The false spirit of pentecostalism seems to never tire of twisting Scripture to keep people in darkness.

I have met pagans and atheists who understand the Bible better than most Pentecostals, though they are damned by their denial of it. And the solution to this, is to bear witness to who the Holy Spirit really is, and identify the spirit of pentecostalism as an unclean spirit and a lying spirit from Satan who comes to steal, kill and destroy. How can one declare the praises of Him who called us out of darkness into His marvellous light if one is still dwelling in the darkness (I Pet. 2:9)?

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." - II Cor. 4:6. And Paul the Apostle was sent to the Gentiles by Jesus Christ for this purpose: "To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me." - Acts 26:18. And this is exactly the work which the false pentecostal spirit works so busily to oppose. Faith is not ignorant or uncertain, and it grows in knowledge of its object, since faith is the certainty of things hoped for, and the knowledge of things not seen (Heb. 11:1).

But speaking of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding; the Bible says:
Proverbs 4
"4He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.
5Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
6Forsake her not, and she shall preserve thee: love her, and she shall keep thee.
7Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
8Exalt her, and she shall promote thee: she shall bring thee to honour, when thou dost embrace her.
9She shall give to thine head an ornament of grace: a crown of glory shall she deliver to thee.
10Hear, O my son, and receive my sayings; and the years of thy life shall be many.
11I have taught thee in the way of wisdom; I have led thee in right paths.
12When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble.
13Take fast hold of instruction; let her not go: keep her; for she is thy life."

And the Bible is filled with this teaching. And the warning to those who do not heed this call is terrible:
Proverbs 8
"1Doth not wisdom cry? and understanding put forth her voice?
2She standeth in the top of high places, by the way in the places of the paths.
3She crieth at the gates, at the entry of the city, at the coming in at the doors.
4Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man.
5O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart.
6Hear; for I will speak of excellent things; and the opening of my lips shall be right things.
7For my mouth shall speak truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.
8All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them.
9They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge.
10Receive my instruction, and not silver; and knowledge rather than choice gold.
11For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it."
"35For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD.
36But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

And Proverbs 1
"20Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:
21She crieth in the chief place of concourse, in the openings of the gates: in the city she uttereth her words, saying,
22How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
23Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
24Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
25But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
26I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
27When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
28Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
29For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
30They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
31Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
32For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
33But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

I believe God has revealed the truth about His Holy Spirit to His church, and I will NOT deny this! To deny this would not merely be false modesty (I Cor. 2:9-16), it would be for me to renounce my faith entirely - because it is a denial of God's grace in salvation. When a Christian says, "I know", it is not a confession of pride, it is boasting in the Lord who has shown us the light (I Cor. 1:24-31). Who is Malcolm Forbes to attempt to silence our praise for our Saviour?

To despise knowledge and wisdom is no different than to despise the Holy Spirit of God.

John Piper's Doctrine of a Common Ineffectual "Atonement"

2010-04-17T02:45:00.000+01:00

A friend sent me this link to a question and answer session by John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church: http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2343_did_jesus_death_do_anything_for_unbelievers/

I've heard him preach this false doctrine before, so I thought it was worth commenting on as follows:

I hope you will read and receive this comment with the understanding that I mean this as an encouragement and as a helpful, edifying, and God-glorifying comment both for Piper (whom I have strongly criticised) and for all the other readers.

He makes a telling statement about the whole fuzzy construct of common grace and free offer theology when he says towards the end, "You're alive!" This is totally wrong, and a wrong way of thinking about the non-elect, and God's attitude towards them. The sinner is dead is trespasses and sins, and therefore does not have a "chance" (and chance is not a word in the dictionary of a Reformed Christian). A "chance to believe"? Is not the very idea undiluted Arminianism?

It's very true that God gives people greater judgment for rejecting the preaching of the Gospel - Christ speaks about this (Matthew 11:21ff). But notice that God's judgment of sinners is with regard to their disobedience, not their rejection of a gracious offer (since how could God offer what He had not purposed to give them?). As II Thessalonians 1:7-10 makes totally clear, Christ will return "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel..." It is for disobedience that the wicked reprobate receive greater condemnation. Of course it is true that God gives the wicked many good things in this world, and holds them guilty for their misuse of these things and unthankfulness, but while His purpose in giving good things to the elect is for their good, His purpose in giving the very same things to the reprobate is to bring them under further condemnation (Rom. 11:9; Psalm 73) - not an attitude of grace at all (Psalm 5:4-6; 11:5-7; etc).

It's important because God is just and simple. It is not possible to say that a man who ends up in hell has received any grace at all - because God's grace is one of His perfect attributes, which must necessarily be in harmony with all His other attributes. God is also sovereign, and omnipotent, and infinte. And therefore His grace must also be sovereign, and omnipotent, and infinite.

And in regard to the above message, is very important not to err on this because of the nature of Christ's atonement. A Christian believes that Christ is His Saviour because Christ is the Head of the Church, His body. His is the legal representative of His people by means of the bond of faith worked by the power of the Holy Spirit which indwells every believer, "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. " (Eph. 5:30, cf. Eph. 2:1ff). So a Christian believes that Christ died on the cross as our substitute. He died in our stead/place, as the corporate head of all His elect which were given to Him by the Father.

Because of this substitutionary atonement it says, "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (II Cor. 5:21). So, the only people who can receive any benefit from the atonement are those for whom He was a legal representative before God, which can only be those who are united to Him by faith. And furthermore, if united to Him as a member of His body, then we receive the effect of the atonement. And either it was a full atonement, or no atonement at all. There cannot be measures of atonement because we are all "one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). All those in Christ have received exactly the same grace and are equal with respect to salvation - "all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ" (Eph. 1:3). In Christ, "all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God" (II Cor. 1:20).

And all this must be the case because by means our union with Christ, there is a "swap". All our sins (past, present, future, and of every member in Christ, since there is no difference) were imputed to Him, just as all His righteousness was imputed to us (again, II Cor. 5:21). And God poured out His wrath upon the Son, such that Christ received in His own self, the full measure of punishment due to us for our sins (I Pet. 2:24; Gal. 3:13). And His resurrection for our sakes is absolute proof of our full justification in Him, that He made a complete payment for the sins of all those for whom He was a legal representative. If He has risen, then anyone who receives the benefit of the atonement must also be risen (I Cor. 15:22), and has no sin left to be paid for - we are "dead to sin".

And all this is even further proved because only in Christ can our righteous God love sinners with His infinite love. If we are in Christ, God beholds us, as He beholds Christ - as beloved children with whom He is well-pleased (Matt. 3:17)! And since we are beloved in Christ, it cannot be that God could cast us into hell, just as He cannot reject His only begotten Son (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27).

Piper says here that the non-elect receive some grace from the atonement, but only those united to Christ can receive any benefit from the atonement, and if united to Christ - all the Father's infinite love and grace toward Christ, is also then toward us. So, it's all or nothing with God. If not elect, there is no basis for having any part in the atonement, and if any has a part in the atonement at all, they have full and complete salvation as a beloved child of God. To believers He promises full redemption and assurance of salvation in Christ the only begotten Son, yet to unbelievers He promises both temporal and eternal judgment and nothing but wrath and holy vengeance against them that "obey not the Gospel".

In conclusion, I can't see how Piper's doctrine here is not undermining all that we believe about the particular atonement of Jesus Christ. There is only two conclusions to including the non-elect in the atonement (which is really a contradiction in terms), either all are saved without exception (which is the most blatant universalist heresy), or the cross is a mere crutch by which we must save ourselves by means of the determinant addition of our will/work (which is the proud religion of the Pelagian and Arminian heretics - and wholly dethrones God). We have already seen that it is quite impossible for any who are in Christ to receive variant effects from the atonement - and everything about the nature of the atonement (that it is penal, and substitutionary, and involves full double-imputation, and is applied to those united to Christ, first of all by sovereign unconditional election, and also in time and in our consciousness by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit which produces faith in all the elect, and finally in our complete sanctification and glorification with Christ when we go to be with Him in heaven).

Preaching ought to separate light from darkness, as God does, to sanctify the elect and build them up in assurance, and declare to the wicked what God's attitude is toward them unless they repent, and therefore teach indeed without equivocation that, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

- Sam W.

P.S. There's more to say about this - but it ought to be clear just how impossible it is to believe in any kind of common grace, and yet still defend the doctrine of particular atonement. The difference between the Arminians and Calvinists on that point is after all, especially with regard to what the atonement actually is. The consequences for distorting the simple biblical teaching about the atonement are massive.

The Beauty Regime

2010-03-30T15:21:00.000+01:00

I always thought the words of this song are interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zynO8DMDTC4
Of course, as an unbeliever he presents the completely wrong solution, much like Joel Osteen's religion of self-esteem. A Christian believes that true beauty is that of inner condition of the heart, not of the outward appearance, and therefore the only beauty we have is in Christ. God is the implication of all perfections, and as such only He is truly beautiful, and everything else is a parody and mockery of His perfection.

Isaiah 53:2-3 "For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath
no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

The world knows nothing about true beauty and so vainly chases after and obsesses about the outward appearance, which at the end of the day - is just eaten by worms. I wish Christians would be better witnesses against this kind of godlessness - but all too often they live in bondage to the same lies.

A brief Christian perspective on "Sustainable Development"

2010-02-26T16:55:00.001Z

Sustainable Development is a popular concept these days - it is a buzz word that is driving significant changes in global policies, legislation, and economics. This is especially true in the European Union. It is important for Christians to look at the things that the world is obsessed about very carefully. As Christians, we do have a responsibility to be faithful and good stewards with what God has given us - to not use things wastefully or recklessly, and (as with everything) to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. And this is not an earthly kingdom, and so we view our responsibilities in that light, liberally giving to the work of the Gospel and supporting it by whatever means we have, especially in the local church and for the good of "the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). But because this is only a proximate care that we have over these things, whereas God has the ultimate control over all, we ought not be anxious and worried about tomorrow. We also know that ultimately this present world is reserved for fire when Christ comes again, and until that time it will grow worse and worse until it is finally ripe for judgment (II Pet. 3).

The world on the other hand is very worried about tomorrow. And it is also only interested in using its resources for furthering the earthly kingdom of Antichrist. The key questions to ask about "sustainable development" are, "Sustainable for whom?", and, "Development of what?" The world has its own ideas about that, but we are interested in the reason that the world exists - the salvation of the church in Christ, made up of God's elect from every tongue, tribe and nation.

I once asked one of my lecturers (I studied Environmental Science) whether sustainable development was not simply an admirable but impossible goal, based on the second law of thermodynamics (neatly expressed as "rust and rot doth corrupt"). The truth is that this world bears witness of itself that it is "wearing away like a garment" and cannot last - and therefore our hope ought not to be in this world, but in "the city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God". But for the academics, economists and politicians of the world, their only hope is in this present evil age - and this is why they so strenuously fight for the idea of sustainable development.

As for climate change - it is not really scientific. This was the subject of my final year thesis at university, which I can send to anyone who is interested in reading more about it. Climate change is convenient hype to enforce more and more laws and policies in line with the world's philosophy of sustainable development. Things like this are likely to make living as a Reformed Christian very difficult in the days to come, as our freedoms are gradually eroded, and the world unites more and more in global governance for the kingdom of Antichrist. The influence of these philosophies is more evident in the EU than anywhere else in the world, in my opinion.

I love catechism!

2010-01-30T14:41:00.001Z

It's the new year and nearly February and I still haven't updated my blog. Rather than fabricate something for this purpose, I thought I would just repost here an article of mine that was published in Beacon Lights. For those unfamiliar with this publication, this might a good occasion to check it out in more detail. It's a young people's magazine for the PRC filled to the brim with edifying and instructive material. Next time I'll give more detail about how the new year has been for a Reformed Christian living in Limerick.

Church Family by Samuel Watterson
Samuel is a member of Limerick Reformed Fellowship in the Republic of Ireland.
The Privilege of Catechetical Instruction
“The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.
The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage.
I will bless the Lord, who hath given me counsel; my reins also instruct me in the night seasons.”
Psalm 16:5-7.

For Protestant Reformed young people, the Heidelberg Catechism is an ordinary part of growing up. We reach a certain age, and we study and learn it in catechism classes. It is good and right that this should be the ordinary experience of the covenant child. Covenant children are born and brought up in the light as their believing and godly parents are in the light. Godly parents know that God saves his elect children, and keeps his people from apostasy, in the way of spiritual instruction and discipline (Hosea 4:6). Yet for others it is not so ordinary.

The importance of this is simply an historical fact. It is the sad story of most of the Jewish nation, such that when the Lord of glory was set before them, they cried with the ungodly Gentiles, “Let him be crucified. His blood be on us, and on our children.” It is also the sad story of many of the regions which are now thoroughly under the grip of Islam. It is the story of much of continental Europe now too, in which there is scarcely a faithful Reformed church to be found any longer. And of course, it is the story closer to home, of my own forebears, the Irish and Scottish Presbyterians and Anglicans (and the legacy of Patrick is long gone). What Isaiah lamented concerning Israel could be said of Ireland and Great Britain too: “Except the Lord of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah” (Isaiah 1:4-9).

Growing up within a modern Irish Presbyterian church (as well as in other groups in certain years, especially the Methodist church), I had no idea of how far we had fallen. Instruction was limited to a superficial five-minute “children’s address,” coupled with a few uninspired songs (which were at the least terribly inappropriate and imbalanced if not utterly heretical) and then for the rest of the service the children were banished from the congregation to take part in “Sunday School.” To call it school was perhaps false advertisement.

In some ways this was good for the children. They did not have to stay to be corrupted even further by the ambiguous and sensational platitudes of the hopeless Arminian “gospel” that was commonly put forward by the minister. Sunday school usually involved harmless crafts and games with cartoon Bible characters. However, it has been said that such cartoons place the Bible in the same realm as the trash that the children see on the television.[3] Children learn to equate Jesus Christ with Santa Claus; as something to grow out of. Seeing Noah’s ark depicted as a round bathtub-like object with a giraffe’s head poking out of a porthole is more likely to evoke laughter than awe. This is especially so when the child is simultaneously inculcated with the secular worldview for most of the rest of the week, at home and at school. The ark was not “cute.” It was provided graciously by God to save his elect church from the terrible destruction that he was going to rain down upon the entire world for their wretched wickedness.

All this meant that a young child in the Protestant Reformed Churches knew far more of the Bible and biblical doctrine than myself when I was of the age at which confession of faith would usually be made. Yet now, my eyes having gradually been opened, I am amazed and astounded. Most of all, I am awestruck and humbled at the sovereignty of God’s grace, that amidst such widespread apostasy, and despite the total depravity of my own heart making me as worthy of hell as any other, God spared me. God brought me to his ark to be saved through the day of evil (I Pet. 3:18-22).

My own experience of the Heidelberg Catechism is quite different. I did not grow up with such precious instruction. Instead I floundered through a morass of lies and vanity in confusion and ignorance for years before God lifted me out of the mire to see the truth of biblical Reformed doctrine. The heresies I laboured under sinfully and foolishly for years were many; Pentecostalism, Arminianism, and Anabaptism are the three main categories. These divisive, horrible and detestable poisons ought always to be exposed and condemned by antithetical instruction in the biblical truth. When I encountered the Heidelberg Catechism, it was with great skepticism and pride, but it was also with great earnestness and seriousness thanks to the patient and faithful labors of Rev. Angus Stewart. It is right that we ought to search the Scriptures to confirm whether these things are true, and thankfully the references and the many articles and pamphlets available on the CPRC website were so many signposts and maps to direct us to the light. But we ought to do this in the spirit of prayerful humility and meekness.

It is a terrible and heinous thing when covenantal instruction is so neglected and corrupted in an institution claiming to be a church of Christ. It is also evil when the children of the church despise and reject godly instruction when they ought to cherish it dearly as the very air they breath and the bread they eat. It is all too easy in our carnality, to take for granted the things that God has graciously provided us with. Official catechetical instruction by lawfully ordained ministers of the Word, given biblically, is the chief means of grace to covenant young people, and as such ought to be received as the voice of Jesus Christ as much as the rest of the biblical preaching. By his voice we are inwardly called to him, and united more and more with him through the Spirit which assures us who believe of everlasting salvation. His words are spirit and life, and without them, it follows that we neither have spirit nor life. Delight in the peculiar privilege of receiving catechetical instruction!

http://www.prca.org/current/Beacon%20Lights/Vol-64/2010-01.htm#church_family

The Magnificat

2009-12-17T22:41:00.001Z

"And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord,
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
For He hath regarded the low estate of His handmaiden: for behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is His name.
And His mercy is on them that fear Him from generation to generation.
He hath shewed strength with His arm; He scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree.
He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich He hath sent empty away.
He hath holpen His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spake unto our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever." - Luke 1:46-55.

Greater joy filled the heart of Mary because of the fact that as a mother she might take her place among Israel's women, who in bringing forth their children labored in the blessed hope of the realization of the promise made to the fathers in times of yore. In the midst of sorrow the eye of these covenant women, believing the promise and looking for a heavenly country with faithful Abraham, looked hopefully far beyond the present and the things of this world, toward the blessed and everlasting reign of David's mighty Son. In this hope shared Mary. She looked forward to the realization of Israel's hope. But even this, though distinguishing her from so many thousands of women that labored in vain because they were laboring merely for the world, was not the cause of Mary's supreme joy and blessedness.

For even among these covenant women and believing Israelitish mothers, Mary occupied a place of unique distinction. Had not the angel that is standing before God mysteriously dropped the message from heaven that she would be mother though still a virgin? And had he not explained upon her anxious query how these things might be, that the power of the Most High would overshadow her and that He who was to be her Son forever would be called the Son of God and sit on David's throne forever? Were they, by heavenly injunction, not to call the name of her Son Jesus, because He would save His people from their sin? Mother of Israel's Savior, Mary was to be; the King of Kings was to assume her own flesh and blood! This was her unique privilege from the Lord.

And this glad hope was to be realized that very night!

But there was no place for them, not even in the inn. And because there was no place for them, there was no room for Him to Whom she was to give birth.

And it happened that even at the very moment of His birth, Jesus was crowded out to the very edge of the world. Born in a stable, laid in a manger!

Because there was no room for Him in the inn!
- "The Mystery of Bethlehem" by Herman Hoeksema, pp. 75-76.

One thing that I have learnt this year is that covenant mothers are greatly blessed (Prov. 31:28-31). Still today, they are blessed in bearing covenant children for they are the Lord's heritage (Psa. 127:3-5; Gen. 24:60), and now the mystery has been revealed that His church includes every tongue, tribe, and nation (Psa. 87:4-6; Eph. 3:3-6; Rev. 5:9). I've learnt that this is still one of the main ways that God uses to build up His church and gather His elect (Rom. 9:6-8; Acts 2:39; Isa. 59:21). It is one of the ways in which God accomplishes our salvation, since the Lord will not return to save us through the final judgment of this present evil age, until every last one of His elect has been brought to repentance (II Pet. 3:7-13). Not only are covenant mothers saved through child-bearing which is also the Lord's work in them (Psalm 127:1; I Tim. 2:15), but our salvation too in this way is brought in the way of their bearing of covenant children.

What an inestimable blessing the children of believing parents are (Psa. 128:3-6; Prov. 17:6; Mal. 2:15)! How important is our faithfulness in rearing them, and instructing them in the way of righteousness and holiness (Isa. 54:13; Matt. 28:20; Eph. 6:4; Psa. 78:1-8) - to trust only in our Saviour, being clothed in His righteousness only, and to be sanctified by the Spirit, consecrated to God in His loving service. And in this way too, covenant children are hated and despised by the world as Christ was. The world rejects us, because we are not of the world (John 15:18-19), even though for a short time we must labour and suffer in it (II Cor. 4:17; Phil. 1:29). For the elect covenant children too, there is no room in the inn.

But though we cannot find an earthly tabernacle in this present evil world ruled by Satan and his minions (Eph. 2:2; I John 2:15-16; Heb. 13:12-14), our fellowship is with our Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us (I John 1:3; I Cor. 6:19-20). Our tabernacle is with Him, and is heavenly (Rev. 21:2-4; Heb. 12:22-24). And so, when once more God will shake the world to remove all the reprobate chaff and all that may be shaken, our unshakeable tabernacle will remain (Heb. 12:26-29), and we will be with the Lord our Saviour forever. Let us not labour for what perishes, but for what will endure in the world to come (John 6:27; Matt. 6:19-21)!

How blessed covenant mothers are, to be used of God in such a marvellous way to build up His church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail (Matt. 16:18). And what hope we have still, when children of the church are born, children of Abraham (Gal. 3:29; Gen. 15:5) who must be innumerable as the stars of heaven and the sand of the shores! And when all have been gathered to His tabernacle, despite all the raging of the heathen (Psa. 2:1-8), as we see the signs of the times, our salvation will finally come.

"O turn unto me, and have mercy upon me; give thy strength unto thy servant, and save the son of thine handmaid. Show me a token for good; that they which hate me may see it, and be ashamed: because thou, LORD, hast helped me, and comforted me." - Psalm 86:16-17.

Happy Christmas to all the saints who love the Lord and the brethren unfeignedly!

Sam W.

Spurgeon on Musical Instruments

2009-12-08T18:14:00.001Z

CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON (1834-1892) English Baptist:

"We should like to see all the pipes of the organs in our Nonconformist places of worship either ripped open or compactly filled with concrete. The human voice is so transcendently superior to all that wind or strings can accomplish, that it is a shame to degrade its harmonies by association with blowing and scraping. It is not better music which we can get from organs and viols, but inferior sounds, which unsophisticated ears judge to be harsh and meaningless when compared with a melodious human voice. That the great Lord cares to be praised by bellows we very gravely question; we cannot see any connection between the glory of God and sounds produced by machinery. One broken note from a grateful heart must have more acceptable praise in it than all the wind which swept through whistling pipes. Instrumental music, with its flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of noise makers, was no doubt well suited to the worship of the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar, the king, had set up, and harps and trumpets served well the infant estate of the Church under the law, but in the Gospel's spiritual domain these may well be let go with all the other beggarly elements.
"What a degradation to supplant the intelligent song of the whole congregation by the theatrical prettiness of a quartette, the refined niceties of a choir, or the blowing of wind from inanimate bellows and pipes. We might as well pray by machinery as praise by it."

Amen.

Quoted from this booklet: http://www.cprf.co.uk/bookstore/voicepraise.htm

What does God require in our public worship services?

2009-12-07T14:58:00.000Z

A good friend recently invited me to special musical performance and I thought it might be helpful to share my full response in a broader context:

I am inviting you to the Children's Christmas Programme - Sunday 13th December - 11am ServiceOur children's church will be performing a special musical event during our Sunday Worship Service. You will be blessed by their talent as they present - "Glory to God in the Highest". Invite your family and friends to attend -... all welcome. The Cafe will be serving Free mince pies after the service - be sure to have a cuppa and make new friends!

I responded initially: "I'd come over for a cuppa afterwards and say hello (since I don't think that this performance is appropriate for a Lord's Day worship service), but I have commitments at my own fellowship which is from 12 to about 1 or so, so I probably won't even be able to come for that." To which my friend replied:

How is this performance not appropriate for Lord's Day worship service

Good question! While I'm absolutely sure that this will be a wonderful performance and very worthwhile in many other contexts, I have a very high view of how we have been called to set apart the Lord's Day for public and private worship with the saints. And it is the historic position of God's people in faithful churches throughout the past too, and one of the most important issues that led to the Reformation in the 16th century.

I believe that God requires of us that we worship "in spirit and in truth", and this includes only worshipping Him in the way He has specifically commanded and no other way. If the second commandment teaches us not to make any graven image with which to worship God, then this shows us that we ought not worship with anything of our own invention/imagination, but only with the means that God has prescribed for us to worship Him. In the Old Testament, this was veiled by the earthly shadows of the temple and the sacrifices, but now the veil has been torn, the temple destroyed and the sacrifices nullified - because Christ has come - and we approach the Father only through Him, and no other way. Our worship is pleasing to God only as we are accepted as forgiven in Christ through faith in His sacrifice once for all. See also Psa. 51:15-19.

Since then we are seek salvation only in Christ, and worship only through Him, and by His Spirit of Truth at work in us, it must be that we only search the Scriptures to learn of how we must rightly worship the one true and infinitely glorious God. Certain elements of the worship service are clearly commanded in Scripture by apostolic example, such as public congregational prayer, biblical, expository and exegetical preaching by ordained ministers of the Word (and biblical listening and obeying too!), congregational singing of the spiritual Word of Christ found in the book of songs/hymns (i.e. The Psalms; Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:18-19), reading of Scripture, and congregational offerings for the work of the Gospel and mercies for those in need.

In prayer we pray to God through Christ, and the Spirit prays without utterance with our uttered prayers (since our prayers are so frail and often ignorant; Rom. 8:26-28) and so Christ intercedes Himself for us and works out all things for our good, since He has purchased us by His blood. In preaching, Christ speaks to us by His lawfully called and ordained ministers of the Gospel as they faithfully explain and apply His Word in the Scriptures, the Spirit giving us all understanding and applying the Word to our hearts to change us by God's grace. In singing, which is much like prayer, we all together (not only a certain group) offer up the sacrifice of praise, the fruit of our lips giving thanks to Him (Heb. 13:15-16) by the power of the Spirit which fills us to work true spiritual devotion in us toward God, as we teach and admonish one another by the words of Christ in the inspired Psalms. And in offerings, we give as we have prospered freely and cheerfully as worship to God, for the support of the ministers of the Gospel who must have their living from this work, and for good Christian schools for the godly teaching of our covenant children, and for all those of the household of faith who are in need - all for the mutual edification of God's people.

By these means, we live in covenant fellowship not only with the other saints who are our brethren in the household of God, but also with our Father and His Son Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit (I John 1:3), we speak and live with Him, and He speaks and lives with us as we are the body of Christ, the temple of the Holy Spirit. If then, this additional special musical performance takes the place of one or more of these vital elements of the worship service, I strongly disapprove (Col. 2:20-23). And even this performance is merely additional, it still does not have a right to be in the worship service. For example, it is not the whole congregation singing, but only the children, which in the public worship is not fitting and is in fact schism and not covenantal. Also, they are not singing the God-breathed Psalms which God Himself has granted to us graciously that we might have songs worthy to bring before Him in worship, songs which are those of Jesus Christ Himself. And this should therefore not be considered as appropriate worship for the public worship service.

If it was held afterward or before, then that is certainly permissible, and even beneficial for others as they use their talents to sing about such wonderful topics as God's glory. These truths about acceptable worship being regulated by the Word of God, while once generally widely known and understood, have sadly fallen into obscurity in these times, which is why I gave such a long explanation here. God is seeking those that worship Him in spirit and in truth, and so may He graciously gather us and teach us, if it be His will, so that He would praised as He ought to be in the splendour of holiness.

God bless,

Sam W.

P.S. I have not dealt here with many other crucial issues in proper worship, but I would recommend the many good resources found here:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/psalmsingingresources.htm
http://www.cprf.co.uk/lordsdayresources.htm

The End of Discussion: My Arrogance

2009-12-06T01:44:00.001Z

The Bible tells me that I am an arrogant and proud person. Indeed, that in me there is no humility whatsoever, but only a pride which knows no bounds. But the Gospel tells me that Christ has ascended up on high, and has poured out His Spirit into my cold dead heart of stone, and made it soft toward Him, and by which I now cry, “Abba, Father”, in the certain knowledge and full assurance that I have everlastingly been united to Him. This is the faith that the Spirit of Christ works in all those in which He dwells; He is the Spirit of adoption so that where once we were children of wrath, we are now called sons of the living God in Christ who is the well-beloved Son of God.

Only by this same Spirit, can I believe the Bible which tells me of the enormity of my pride. Only by this Spirit, who works the fruit of humility, can I believe the doctrines of sovereign unconditional and particular grace which demolishes all the grounds on which the pride of my flesh rests. By these mighty truths of Scripture, delivered to me by the One who is the Truth, my soul is set free to praise the glory of the Almighty God instead of the shame and dust of who I am. By this sword of the Spirit, sovereignly given to me, with Christ upholding and strengthening me, I am made willing in the day of His power to strike mercilessly at the root of pride in my own old self.

This true spiritual warfare rages within me; there is the new me, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, who is wholly enthralled only with the glory of God, and there is the old child of Satan, who was created for eternal destruction, and who has eyes only to despise God and all His works, and to proudly vomit up my own shame in putrid self-glorification. This is who I am apart from my Saviour Jesus Christ; all my being at enmity against God in bitter and violent hatred. But in Christ, I am redeemed, and renewed. I am a new creature, made to declare to wondrous praises of the Lord who has called me out of darkness into His marvellous light. For when I dwelt in darkness, I could only boast of myself, but when the light of Christ shone in my heart, I could see Him that dwells in unapproachable light, in the face of Christ, the image of the invisible God.

“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.” - Job. 42:5-6.

And now that I see who I am, as I see the perfection and splendour and beauty of the One to whom all praise is due, I live to put myself to death, seeing that I have been crucified with Christ, and no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And it cannot be possible for me to extol this wondrous grace enough, though I had all eternity in the state of perfection to declare it. But now, I travel through this pilgrimage of affliction and hardship – for I see the sure hope that I have, and I have not yet obtained it. The light of revelation fills my consciousness, awakens me, brings me to life from the dead, and yet while I tarry yet here in this present evil age, I have only the small beginnings of that new life in Christ. I have only the earnest and seal of the Spirit, and I await with deep groanings, the full inheritance that I have as a child of God in Christ.

When I look at myself, what do I see? Only sin. Do I even see a faint glimmering of that miraculous grace that I have received by the power of the Holy Spirit? I can only see small beginnings of obedience, that I could easily convince myself are merely manifestations of hypocritical self-righteousness and wishful thinking. But when I look to Christ, and see the glory and splendour of His death and resurrection for my sins, I am justified. I know He has borne my sins on the tree, for my iniquities it pleased the LORD to crush Him, for my transgressions He was wounded, and the chastisement that brought me peace was laid upon Him. By His stripes, I am healed. The LORD has laid on Him all my iniquity.

What do others see when they look at me? Much the same, I imagine. But many look at me more graciously than I deserve. But how ought we look at another Christian? Surely if the confession of his life is a credible confession that he belongs to Christ, we ought to afford him the judgment of charity, and treat him as a beloved brother in Christ, elect and justified by God. Unless he lives in some gross public sin, or denies the doctrine of Christ, surely we have no grounds to reject him, even though his faith may be weak and confused. Surely we ought to see him as a fellow-pilgrim, burdened and heavy-laden, battling with sin, and only standing by the omnipotent power of God which He exercised in raising Christ from the dead, who is the Author and Finisher of our faith.

We may say to ourselves, oh, does he not seem greatly prideful and arrogant? But do we so quickly lose sight of ourselves and the fierce battle that we too have against our own totally depraved nature? And how can we run so quickly to judge by appearances when if we were to do likewise with ourselves, we could only ever conclude that we were wholly forsaken and cursed by God? But we ought instead to have the faith of our father Abraham:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about a hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was also able to perform.” - Rom. 4:16-21.

After all, what is it that this precious faith that we have obtained consists of?

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” - Heb. 11:1.

What then is the conclusion of this? That faith is the victory that overcomes the world!

“Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed. Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” - Heb. 12:12-14.

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have [been led, Greek: prosagoge] by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.” - Rom. 5:2.

The role of true humility in actively seeking to manifest the unity which all believers have together in Christ cannot be over-stated. But this is wholly absent when the judgment of charity is not also made. The only way in which the unity that all believers have in Christ (who is the Truth, and in whom we are united by the Spirit of Truth) can be manifested is by common confession of the Truth. We are commanded not to be silent but instead to all speak the same thing, without the truth, the only unity present is hypocritical carnality.

“Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment.” - I Cor. 1:10.

“If there be any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies, Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind. Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” - Phil. 2:1-2.

It is obvious to me, seeing with all the differences dividing churches and believers today, that to obey this apostolic command to all speak the same thing must require us to openly, frequently, continually, tenaciously, perseveringly and stubbornly discuss all these points of disagreement until we come to agreement in the truth. We ought to do this believing that the Lord God omnipotent reigneth, and the unchangeable One who cannot lie, will keep His promise that His Spirit will lead us into all truth,and that Scripture is sufficient and self-interpreting to make known to us the truth and keep us from error. We ought also to do this trusting that whatever our inadquacies, weaknesses, failures, sins, and errors are, that He can overcome them by His boundless grace.

But the attitude today of so many modern Irish Evangelicals tortures my soul. These simple principles are turned entirely upside-down and violently corrupted. Instead of pursuing discussion with such patience and charity, people so often end any attempt at discussion by accusing the others of pride and arrogance. I say to myself, yes, of course – that is who the Bible tells me I am, but why are you reacting like this? But seeing the inseparable connection between true active humility and graciously bearing with the sins of other in the judgment of charity, it is quite apparent that those with the most pride are those who end all discussion in this way. Implicit in their accusation against others of arrogance, is the idea that they are better.

Clothed in garments of hypocrisy, while they accuse others of pride, it is those with this attitude who are the schismatics, because by this cruel philosophy they burn the bridges of discussion, and refuse to speak about the things that divide us, so that then we can never come to a common understanding of Scripture. In the face of these eyes who say to the feet, “I have no need of you,” it becomes a difficult thing to continue to afford them that judgment of charity, to say that we ought to seek unity with them, seeing that they openly manifest themselves as schismatics actively opposing unity, despite their proud boasts and excuses. But knowing our own sinfulness, we ought to continue to invite these to discussion in the hopes that God will melt their hearts.

This is not judging hidden motives, but judging words and deeds. When a person consistently refuses to discuss any differences, and gives only the shallow and lame excuse that the others are too prideful, this is nothing less than schism in word and deed (not simply a hidden motive), and ought to be judged as such, so that this person may be called to repentance. But when this person presumes to judge the hidden motives of others as proud, this is only judging by mere appearances, which our Lord expressly condemns! How things have been reversed and confused by such hypocrites!

Against this, we ought instead to bear with one another, even if it seems overwhelmingly to us like the others are swallowed up in pride. Too often this is our own prideful perception, and ungraciousness toward our brother. Instead, in lowliness of mind we ought to consider the others better than ourselves, against all appearances; i.e. even if it appears to us that they are not affording us the same grace. And does the fact that the Bible tells us that we are all full of pride mean that all theological discussion ought to be abandoned or at least avoided? God forbid! For then how could we ever confess our Lord and Saviour who has called us to be His witnesses – ought we to sin for fear of sinning?

No, even though we know that all our "righteous" acts are as filthy rags before the Lord, to use this as an excuse for idleness, sloth, schism, silence, and inactivity is to mock the Lord who sanctifies our works. We may say, “If I do such and such, it will only be done with mixed motives and be therefore unacceptable to the Lord.” But this is the reasoning of our natural selves and Satan. We know by faith that the Lord will strengthen us because we are His workmanship, prepared unto good works, and so He will sanctify our works for His glory – and so instead of sinful unbelief, we ought to hope in our Saviour and press on to travel the narrow path that He has laid out for us. We ought therefore not to despair of reaping any good fruit from theological discussions simply because of our arrogance and other sins, but instead look to the mighty power of God who does as He pleases in the heavens and the earth.

Read the urgency and weight of the apostle's plea in Phil. 2:1. Why is this? There is one body, one Lord, one God, one Spirit, one Truth – and we together, as the body of Christ ought to be confessing a monotheistic religion to the world. Our testimony ought to be that there is only one Lord whom we obey, and that there is only Spirit who dwells and works in us all, and that we are only one body working in unison with all our different roles and functions. This issue weighs so heavily upon the apostle's heart because of his great and overwhelming desire that God's people would show forth God's glory. It is for this purpose that we were saved, and without this passion for the proclamation of God's glory to all creation, there is little passion for true church unity in which we confess the same thing. This is the root of modern Irish Evangelicalism's schismatic attitudes – it is the lack of a genuine desire for God's name alone to be glorified, and an ignorance that this is the purpose for which people are saved.

Finally, there is a great need, not only for the eager and dedicated pursuit of discussion, but also for that discussion to be wholly objective, strictly logical, decently ordered, and based solely upon the testimony of Scripture as the absolute authority in all matters of controversy. Without these, there is good grounds for refusing to enter discussion. For how can we argue with a man who tries to prove his doctrine simply by emotional pleading? And how can we come to agreement with a man who claims that directly contradictory statements can both be true? And in the midst of confusion and disorder, how could we even begin to discuss? And without God's Word in Scripture being the only authority, surely we have nothing to discuss.

May God graciously gather His people together, out of hypocritical, false, and apostatising churches, and into that which a true pillar and ground of the truth, which has not lost its first love.

Sam W.

Tales of the Visit of a Reformed Pastor to Limerick: Part IV

2009-12-03T14:39:00.001Z

On Saturday, amidst widespread flooding, the like of which Ireland has not seen in recorded history, we drove to Kilkee with the Stewarts. The weather was thoroughly filthy as we drove (though the roads were empty, and not flooded), but when we arrived, the sky was blue and clear - even sunny. We walked up to one headland across the rocks at the shore (only slipping occasionally, and amidst a half-hearted ecological commentary by myself), and as we reached there, the wind suddenly grew very strong and cold, and thick black clouds were encroaching and rolling in with relentless speed. We walked somewhat briskly back to the cars in the bay, as the sky light up with lightning and was rocked with mighty thunder. As soon as we arrived at the cars, the heavens opened with torrents of massive hailstones.

So, in that atmosphere we studied the song of Deborah and Barak in Judges - which was peculiarly fitting. As hailstones gathered on the back window, Rev. Stewart was drawing maps of Israel with the condensation on the windscreen. This is an amazing piece of Scripture, which details how God destroyed Israel's enemies, and killed the enemy by the hand of a woman, and how some tribes helped, and others did not but just had great meditations of heart about it (i.e. appointed a study committee to delay long enough so that they are too late to be of any help whatsoever), and how some were cursed for their unwillingness to assist, while others were blessed who gave their very lives in the effort. I couldn't help thinking about all kinds of things this applies to. It was a great personal warning to me too.

As we finished another section introducing Gideon, the weather cleared up and we walked along the opposite headland, and eventually returned to a great meal. I'm not sure but, I think it was possibly that day (or the previous week) in which we spoke at length about our various past adventures in various Christian groups and how things had panned out according to God's gracious providence, and how God gathered us into a true church and delivered us from all that.

The final Lord's Day that the Stewarts were here involved two worship services again, and this time both on Romans 11 (7-8 about the hardening of the largest part of Israel and 9-10, the prayer of David against the reprobate, that their table [which some have mistakenly argued is "common grace"!] would be a snare to them, etc). In the morning we met another friend who came to the morning service and afterward told us all about his home country. We also were able to have some more Bible studies together in Judges. After the evening worship service, we had a discussion about the meaning of the word "world" with another friend who came along (see this article!), and afterwards the Stewarts left, with our plan to visit Ballymena briefly the next weekend to see Prof. Hanko and his wife. An extra bonus was getting to catch up with Francesco De Lucia, a Italian translator of Reformed literature.

So, this has been an eventful time, and what amazes me most is how sinful I can be even when God is so gracious, and even when I can see this so clearly. But I am persuaded that Christ who began a good work, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:6).

Sam W.

FIN :)

Tales of the Visit of a Reformed Pastor to Limerick: Part III

2009-12-03T14:17:00.000Z

On the first Saturday of their visit we braved the cold weather and went on a trip to the Clare Glens with the Stewarts. But we were walking for a couple of hours, and I don't have the time now to relate all we spoke about there. Afterwards we visited a brother who had an operation recently (who was in top form!) and we finished the day with some excellent cooking and more Bible study and devotions on the book of Judges.

That Lord's Day began with a worship service in which we listened to a sermon on Romans 11:6, which I would agree is one of the clearest statements in Scripture that our election is entirely gracious and nothing at all of ourselves (cf. Eph. 2:8; I Cor. 4:7). We are much in need of such humbling doctrine - precisely because we are so very sinful. In the evening the sermon was about Stephen the Martyr which was a great encouragement to spur us on, especially considering how God used this very evil hatred of the false church to promote the Gospel even further and gather even more of His people from the Gentiles. Of course all things work for our good, as the curses David received from Shimei were so many showers of blessings upon his head. We had been going through a sermon series from Numbers 22-25 about God's "uncursable" church, and so this fitted in very well.

I think that day Rev. Stewart made a suggestion about whether there was any possibility of me helping to put the Calvin Conference DVDs on Youtube. So, after some experimenting and figuring out on Monday, I finished putting them all online by Saturday. We had another Bible study on Wednesday and on I Peter 3:7-12, although we barely finished the first verse! Again it was a very enriching time, everyone present loved it. It was very sad, because some were asking me about the possibility of future Bible studies, but it will be rare that Rev. Stewart will be in Limerick to lead them. However, we are praying and hoping to have a full-time missionary working here with us soon.

After the study we were about to leave and someone remembered the match against France (which we had to win one-nil to qualify - I think) and wondered aloud about the score - and lo and behold, it was fifteen minutes into extra time and Henri had just performed his now notorious unchecked double-handball goal after Ireland having been in the lead for most of the match (and after a brief but valiant attack for the last fifteen minutes we lost). So the guys at our house were pretty distraught and upset (almost weeping, I could say) when we arrived back at our house.

Anyway, that week the lecture was on Thursday which in the unsearchable (yet good and perfect) providence of God, meant that many people couldn't make it. It was on “The Glory of God”, and though the attendance was much lower (think seven less or so), we remember that God's word does not go out in vain - it was a weighty and meaty lecture, for which I am very thankful. One application of the passage (Exo. 33:18-34:7) was made to popular Revival meetings (in which people pray for God to show His glory, yet reject those who preach sovereign election and reprobation) and was very apt - since if God shows Moses His glory by the saying, "I will show mercy on whom I show mercy", then these same fervent (yet hypocritical) "prayer-warriors" are actually commonly engaged in burying God's glory.

More soon...

Tales of the Visit of a Reformed Pastor to Limerick: Part II

2009-12-03T13:51:00.001Z

I was also talking to Rev. Stewart a little about Erik Guichelaar's essay (related to evolutionism) in connection with the recent speech on Calvin vs. Darwin given in a Christian High School in the US. Angus suggested the great idea of putting it on our website, so I contacted Erik and did that the same week.

On Wednesday, we had a Bible study on I Peter 3:1-7. This was a very blessed time, as we discussed the Holy Scripture and meditated on it together and how it applies to us in so many ways. Of course there was much discussion about how the teachings here oppose the ungodly philosophy of the "feminist" movement. We also spoke about the dichotomy in verse 4 between the two different kinds of adornment (especially as it is important for a woman desiring to be sought by a godly man and a man desiring to seek a godly woman, but also in its intended context - that of a witness to an unbelieving husband for his salvation). It was a well-mixed group, and much profitable time was spent discussing the implications of the doctrine in verse 7 that husband ought to dwell with their wifes with understanding. One man who attended texted me early the next morning to say how much they had enjoyed this study. That week Ireland also lost one-nil to France at home, but fortunately we able to take that blow after such an uplifting Bible study.

On Friday then, we had our first lecture on “The Last Days,” and I had written a blogpost about this previously - making some comments about the bizarre philosophies of modern (or should I say modernist?) Irish Evangelicalism, insofar as they related. The lecture was a superb Scriptural explanation of sober eschatology - especially focused on a right exegesis of Acts 2. It showed absolutely conclusively that the last days reaches from the coming of our Immanuel, to the second coming, which in one event shall include the final resurrection, and the final judgment, and the ushering in of the new heavens and the new earth, etc - the consummation of all things and the end of days. It was argued that the last days are called the last days because there are no days after them (i.e. no earthly millenial kingdom!), and they finish with the last day (singular) which is also so-called because it is the final day with no more days after it.

One man commented at the end in astonishment, "You never used Revelation [the book]!" I think this is the source of a lot of confusion regarding eschatology - people immediately turn to the book in the Bible which perhaps requires the most intepretation using a comprehensive and thorough-going understanding of all the previous books, and so then they try to interpret it with little reference to the massive ground of revelation from which it draws its language, images, and ideas. No wonder with such a headstrong and ignorant approach to Scripture that the wild ideas from over-fertile imaginations of sinful men are so numerous. No, in contrast to this, if we speak of eschatology, the place to start is not the book of Revelation - the place to start is the simplest passages which speak most plainly.

No-one tries to work out a mathematics problem involving complex trigonometry and integration, without first having a thorough understanding of the basic algebra required, and even that is fruitless without the basics of arithmetic. But it is exactly our nature to turn things upside down and backwards in spiritual pride and ignorance. I remember Prof. Dykstra (of the PRTS) speaking about how many heresies come directly from ungodly hermeneutics. One friend enjoyed the lecture so much he felt like clapping afterwards. Another friend felt similarly, and they both bought some books I think - thankfully there were two copies of "Doctrine According to Godliness" by Ron Hanko, which is an absolute treasure, worth far more than the RFPA charge for it, and worth far more than its own weight in gold too.

More soon...

Tales of the Visit of a Reformed Pastor to Limerick: Part I

2009-12-03T13:29:00.001Z

We had a great time with Rev. Stewart and his wife recently. They were here in Limerick for two weeks and three Lord's Day services. If I were to tell everything we did, it would probably take a book, so I'll constrain myself to highlights.

The first thing I should note is that they brought with them copies of Prof. Engelsma's recent pamphlet on the gift of assurance. It is an excellent work, and one that needs broadcasted loud and clear. This area of pneumatology is one without which the Good News is entirely obscured. It's the central reason that the Reformation had to happen - it's the only reason we are not left as orphans - without it we have no earnest of our salvation and we would be of all men most miserable.

"The people that walked in darkness has seen a great light: they that dwell in the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." - Isa. 9:2.

Manuel and I were listening to one of the CDs from the BRF conference about the Holy Spirit, to a lecture that demonstrated the huge significance of the "filioque" in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Wow.

"But ye have an unction from the Holy One [Christ], and ye know all things... But the anointing which ye have received of Him [Christ] abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it [He] hath taught you, ye shall abide in Him." - I John 2:20, 27.

So, the first Lord's Day we heard two excellent sermons, one on Romans 11:1-5 about God's purposes with Israel in the NT age, and one on Stephen the Apologist (Acts 7). On that day as well as the others we heard the voice of Jesus Christ through in faithful and biblical preaching - and I can speak for everyone, by God's grace, when I say that we did not receive it as the words of a man, but as it truly was, the word of God.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." - I Thess. 2:13.

Of course, the reason we thank only God for this miracle, not only of the true preaching, but also the true receiving of it, is that it is entirely the mysterious work of His Spirit of truth which gives us the mind of Christ (I Cor. 2:16).

"Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth; but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." - I Cor. 2:12-14.

I think that is one of clearest passages teaching sovereign grace. This is very humbling and makes me very thankful to God that He has not given to us a spirit of stupor like others; this was explained in the morning sermon on Romans 11:7-8 on the last day Rev. Stewart was with us.

More soon...

A prayer for elders

2009-11-15T00:49:00.001Z

Also we pray Thee,
True Father and Saviour,
For all those whom Thou hast ordained
By Thy believers
And to whom Thou hast committed
The care of souls
And the dispensing of Thy sacred gospel,
That Thou mayest lead them
And conduct them
By Thy Holy Spirit,
In order that they may be found
Faithful and loyal ministers
Of Thy glory,
Having always this end,
That all the poor wandering and lost sheep,
Being gathered and led back
To the Lord Jesus Christ,
Chief pastor and prince of bishops;
In order that, from day to day,
They may profit and grow in Him
Unto all righteousness and holiness.

Moreover, pray deliver all churches
From the clutches of ravening wolves
And from all hirelings who seek
Their own ambition and profit,
And not the exaltation
Of Thy holy name alone
And the well-being of Thy flock.

- John Calvin.
(quoted from "The Piety of John Calvin", Ford Lewis Battles, trans., ed., New Jersey: P&R Publishing.)

What's so important about the Last Days?

2009-11-12T15:48:00.003Z

It is common in modern Irish Evangelicalism to speak of primary and secondary issues, whether they be of doctrine or practice. Often the primary issues are defined as those issues in which all Evangelicals are agreed. Naturally as more and more groups are accepted into Evangelicalism, with more and more erroneous and heretical views, these primary issues are being continually bombarded and slowly diminished from within. This arises out of necessity, for the inclusion of others who are automatically seen as genuine believers, because of another attitude within Irish Evangelicalism that shirks at any criticism (especially public) of any other religious group (including Rome, preferring to silently disagree). I would be inclined to call this "spinelessness" or "cowardice", and definitely being ashamed of Christ and His words (Mark 8:38), and definitely unloving.

Secondary issues are likewise, often defined as divisive issues - the issues which cause division between Christians. The prevailing attitude is not that these issues ought to be discussed so that agreement can be found, but rather in the hope of greater unity, that they ought not to be discussed and should be set aside as unimportant. The result of this, is that if a church, for example, strongly preaches a certain view of the Last Days, they are seen as needlessly divisive, and since their view is not universally agreed, they ought not to preach on the subject at all.

This view of doctrine is almost unquestioned, and even promoted as the true doctrine of the catholicity of the church. This is as if to say that if a church claims that her distinctive doctrines are true (and therefore the contrary views are wrong), that she is denying the catholicity of the church. She is guilty of being schismatic. Instead she ought to say we are all right (despite contradictions), or that we will never know on this side of eternity who is right. And since we do not know, or cannot know, we ought to preach only on the primary issues (which are continually being diminished). This view twists the old motto, “unity in diversity”, to define diversity as doctrinal diversity. And not surprisingly, this philosophy in practice usually does not result in silence on “secondary issues”, but rather it silences protests against all kinds of heresies; those of Romanists, other Arminians, Anabaptists, and Pentecostals, whose unchecked poisons then prevail in accelerating apostasy.

This is an ecclesiological heresy. The catholicity of the church is not that we must accept all doctrines as being equally true or valid. Indeed the catholicity of the church is not about diversity of doctrine at all (because there is one God, and therefore one Truth [John 14:6]), it is about believers from all tongues, tribes, and nations being equal in Christ, co-heirs with us all in all the promises of salvation - and this includes believers who are ethnically Jews. As our own Heidelberg Catechism explains this term found in the ancient Apostles' Creed:

Q. 54. What believest thou concerning the “holy catholic church” of Christ?
A. That the Son of God, from the beginning to the end of the world (John 10:11; Gen. 26:4), gathers (Rom. 9:24; Eph 1:10), defends, and preserves to Himself (John 10:16) by His Spirit and Word (Isa. 59:21), out of the whole human race (Deut. 10:14, 15), a church chosen to everlasting life (Acts 13:48), agreeing in true faith; and that I am, and for ever shall remain, a living member thereof (I Cor. 1:8, 9; Rom. 8:35ff).

Immediately this is the condemnation of all Jewish premillennial dispensationalism. All doctrines which teach a future earthly kingdom of the Jews are heretical - a gangrene which must be cut off because they inherently divide the body of Christ (Eph. 2:14-15; 3:6; 4:4), and hinder the true mission of the church - that of preaching the Gospel to every creature, and teaching them to observe all things commanded by God and baptising all nations (Matt. 28:18-20; Isa. 52:6-15).

Furthermore, this ecclesiological heresy proudly claims for itself special knowledge of what doctrines are important and what are not, and therefore what doctrines that ministers are allowed to preach, and what they must not preach. This is a dynamic, mystical, man-centred, and therefore unbiblical view of doctrine. Any preacher humbly devoted to God in his calling to preach, prayerfully studies the Bible as God's Word, which he must preach indiscriminately and uncompromisingly to be innocent of men's blood.

He understands that all the Bible is God's Word, and that the whole counsel of God must be preached (Acts 20:26-32), and that God's people are frail and weak spiritually, and full of sin, and need instructed, exhorted, reproved, and rebuked in every way to encourage them and build them up in unity, including doctrinal unity (Eph. 4:1-16; I Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:1ff). He knows that "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” And he knows that he must keep nothing back from them which is profitable (Acts 20:20). He has only one qualification for what he must preach – is it in the Bible? If it is, it must be preached!

That champion of the true biblical doctrine of justification through faith alone by grace alone, Martin Luther, says this far better than I could, speaking about what is perceived by Irish Evangelicalism as the most divisive (and therefore most forbidden) doctrine of all (though as much as it is crucial in cultivating true humility, the necessary prerequisite of unity, it is actually one of the most unifying doctrines of all):

“If, my Erasmus, you consider these paradoxes (as you term them) to be no more than the inventions of men, why are you so extravagantly heated on the occasion? In that case, your arguments affect not me, for there is no person now living in the world who is a more avowed enemy to the doctrines of men than myself. But if you believe the doctrines in debate between us to be (as indeed they are) the doctrines of God, you must have bid adieu [goodbye] to all sense of shame and decency thus to oppose them. I will not ask, 'Whither is the modesty of Erasmus fled?' but, which is much more important, 'Where, alas! are your fear and reverence of the Deity when you roundly declare that this branch of truth which He has revealed from heaven, is, at best, useless and unnecessary to be known?' What! shall the glorious Creator be taught by you, His creature, what is fit to be preached and what is to be suppressed? Is the adorable God so very defective in wisdom and prudence as not to know till you instruct Him what would be useful and what pernicious? Or could not He, whose understanding is infinite, foresee, previous to His revelation of this doctrine, what would be the consequences of His revealing it until those consequences were pointed out by you? You cannot, you dare not say this. If, then, it was the Divine pleasure to make known these things in His Word, and to bid His messengers to publish them abroad, and leave the consequences of their so doing to the wisdom and providence of Him in whose name they speak, and whose message they declare, who art thou, O Erasmus, that thou shouldest reply against God and say to the Almighty, 'What doest Thou?'

“St. Paul, discoursing of God, declares peremptorily, 'Whom He will He hardeneth,' and again, 'God willing to show His wrath,' etc. And the apostle did not write this to have it stifled among a few persons and buried in a corner, but wrote it to the Christians at Rome, which was in effect, bringing this doctrine upon the stage of the whole world, stamping an universal imprimatur [official approval for publication] upon it, and publishing it to believers at large throughout the earth. What can sound harsher in the uncircumcised ears of carnal men than those words of Christ, 'Many are called, but few chosen'? And elsewhere, 'I know whom I have chosen.' Now, these and similar assertions of Christ and His apostles are the very positions which you, O Erasmus, brand as useless and hurtful.”
- Martin Luther, “The Bondage of the Will”, sect. 23, as quoted in Jerome Zanchius, “Absolute Predestination”, pp. 96-97, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

Luther's testimony ought to sufficiently remove from all the godly, this heresy which teaches that man has the authority over what must be preached and what must not.

In this context many say that what we believe about the Last Days is simply unimportant. It is certain that not every detail about this time and the future is important (insofar as not every detail is given to us in Holy Scripture), but the general idea and our one blessed hope is. Wrong literalistic views of the millennium have this problem (aside from an over-emphasis on a very small portion of Scripture) – they predict a coming magnificent earthly kingdom of Christ as the great final triumph of the church. From this they say that we must be especially busy in politics, in the media, in economics, etc. to go about trying to carnally establish this carnal kingdom.

In this the supreme importance of Gospel-preaching is side-lined and neglected. The energy and resources of the church are spent on promoting the national Israel of 1948, or the institution of “Christian laws”, not on promiscuously proclaiming the Gospel to every creature. False eschatology (doctrine of last things) destroys the true mission of the church, and in fact plays into the hands of the great kingdom of anti-Christ that we know is even now developing. For this reason, all true preachers of the Gospel ought to denounce these errors wherever they are found.

The good news tells us that the kingdom of Christ is not an earthly one wherein dwelleth unrighteousness – it is spiritual and that this world is becoming ripe for judgment, so that through great tribulation we must enter the kingdom of heaven (Acts 14:22). This is good news, because even now we know that Christ is reigning in heaven and that in this way His glory and grace is most glorified through history and the salvation of His church from this present evil age. Our blessed hope, is in the personal return of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will usher in the new heavens and the new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness – and that alone. As Prof. David J. Engelsma puts it:

“As deaf to the testimony of history as it is to the witness of Scripture, theological modernism still stubbornly entertains the hope of a “golden age” for mankind by means of evolutionary development and the efforts especially of preachers, politicians, scientists, and teachers in the state schools. Rome has its French Jesuit philosopher, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, liberation theologians, and, as his recent encyclical, 'Charity in Truth', indicates, the present pope.

“Protestantism has its Paul Tillich and hosts of pastors whose message every Sunday morning is love for mankind (referred to as humankind), tolerance of everyone and everything (except uncompromising confession of the truth and unswerving obedience to the law of God), and the uniting of all the nations and peoples of the world (excluding the holy nation, which is the true church).

“Natural men and women are moved by this hope of an earthly paradise – a carnal 'kingdom of God'. American politicians seek votes with the vision of 'a new world order'. Lenin and Stalin won the hearts of millions, including liberals in the United States, by their announcement of the coming of the millennium in the form of Communism, regardless of Communism's avowed godlessness, mass murders, and dictatorial cruelties. Hitler bewitched virtually all of Germany, including multitudes of German Christians, with the prospect of the 'thousand-year Reich' – the millennial kingdom of the messianic Fuhrer – reared up though it was by war, bloodshed, and terror.

“With his millennium, Antichrist will seduce the world, including many nominal Christians, who do not have their heart set on the spiritual kingdom of Christ, revealed in the sound doctrine of the Gospel (II Thess. 2). The seduction of will be the arrival, at long last, of the millennial kingdom of God and Christ (as Antichrist's prophet, the beast out of the earth [Rev. 13:11ff.] will describe it) in its full, carnal, bedazzling, beguiling splendour and beneficence.

“From this conception of the millennium, the Reformed post-millenialists are anxious to distance themselves. Understandably. Well may they be anxious also that their conception of a carnal kingdom not play into the program of the 'king of fierce countenance', who 'by peace shall destroy many' (Dan. 8:23-25).”

- Standard Bearer, 86(2), October 15, 2009, p.36.

The final objection may be, that while this may a serious problem for many elsewhere, it is certainly not an issue here in Limerick. Anyone who knows what is preached in Irish Methodist and Presbyterian churches today (especially in Presbyterianism), and the popular notions in Mallow Street hall (Brethren-style dispensationalism), and the local Assemblies of God institution, Abundant Life, knows that heretical eschatology is a deep and spreading poison among “Evangelical” Christians in Limerick.

Against this, and in promotion of the positive biblical Gospel, the true testimony of Scripture about the Last Days will be proclaimed this Friday evening by Rev. Angus Stewart. If it is God's truth, no God-fearing saint ought to dare to call it divisive. God's truth always builds unity, and gathers the saints together – because Christ's sheep hear His voice and follow Him (John 10:26-31).

Salvation belongs to our God: not unto us, O Lord, not unto us!

2009-10-24T00:44:00.001+01:00

Why do I hate "salvation by free will" (Arminianism) so much? Because I love God my Saviour who saved me even though my will was totally enslaved to sin and I deserved only hell even by my very nature since the moment I was conceived (Psalm 51; Rom. 3:9-28; 8:5-11).

The Gospel of Arminianism is the Gospel of hopelessness, and can do nothing except leave us all to damnation, since its only power is the powerlessness of the sinful will.

The Gospel of Christ however, is the power of God unto salvation!! Why? Because it relies nothing on us, but only upon what cannot change - God's eternal counsel in predestination (Rom. 8:28-9:29; Heb. 6:17-20; Eph 1:3-12). Except the Lord had predestinated us unconditionally to salvation we could only be as Sodom and Gomorrah. Of that, I have no doubt in my own conscience. What about you?

Here's the difference, the one rests upon the will of a totally depraved sinner - it cannot be more powerless. The other rests wholly upon the immutability of God. "For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." (Mal. 3:6).

Wherever the light of this truth is extinguished, the Gospel has been utterly lost, the blood of Christ has been trampled underfoot, the Spirit of holiness has been thoroughly despised, and the glory of God has been replaced with the shame of the wicked. Where this truth has fallen to the streets, there it is that Satan rules.

But Christ will come, and all his enemies will be under His feet, for the Sovereign Lord is always victorious, and never fails to triumph. Not a drop of His precious blood can ever go to waste, and not sinner for whom He paid the ransom could ever be condemned to hell. Only this Gospel cleanses our consciences and assures us of eternal life in fellowship with our Creator, Saviour and Lord. Believe it, and join a church that preaches it without compromise!

Sam W.

Please take some time to study this important subject:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/christofarminianism.htm
http://cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/defenseofcalvinism.htm
http://cprf.co.uk/pamphlets/calvinismthetruth.htm

Good works in the sight of God?

2009-10-12T12:01:00.004+01:00

Many boast today about their philanthropy, and all the wondrous things they think to do for humanity. Many Christians also praise these things as "good works", even though they may be done by the vilest atheist, and ungodly heathen. What is this preposterous notion they have that the unregenerate can do "good works"? That these carnal and wholly unspiritual people, enemies of God, and totally depraved in nature, can truly love their neighbour by all these deeds (Rom. 8:7-8)?

What measure are they using? It is certain that these people are not using God's measure - the only measure that counts (Rom. 3:9-18). Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and the praise of men, but does he have the praise of God? If not, then what does he have at all (Rom. 2:29)?

It is nothing but a proud insanity and most of all an impossibility to attempt to keep second table of the law while discarding the first table. For all of God's commandments are inseparably joined, such that if we are not keeping all of them, we have kept none of them (Jas. 2:10). If we have not loved God in our supposed "love" for our neighbour, we are nothing but hypocrites (Matt. 23:23). Such is our vast need for the imputed righteousness of Christ (Rom. 4:5-8). By grace alone this is imputed to us, through the gift of faith (Eph. 2:8-9).

The only sacrifice which God regards from us is that sacrifice sanctified by the blood of Christ (Eph. 2:10), and which proceeds from the new heart (upon which is written the two tables of the law - to love God and our neighbour - II Cor. 3:3; Ezek. 26-27; Jer. 31:33), and which in profound humility and brokenness cries, "UNWORTHY!" Those who by grace alone (and not of themselves at all) make this their offering, "God, be merciful unto me, a sinner," are those who are freely pardoned and fully justified by the blood of Christ (Luke 18:13-14).

If any of this hits home with you, please take time to read and study this article by Herman Hoeksema: "The Curse-Reward of the Wicked Well-Doer".

Sam W.

How Do I Know God's Will For My Life?

2009-10-05T15:02:00.004+01:00

On Thursday, 24th of September, Rev. Angus Stewart gave a lecture entitled, “Guidance: How Do I Know God's Will For My Life”. This included a robust and comprehensive defense of sola Scriptura over against all the insane notions of various kinds of fanatics, charismatics, pentecostals, Arminians, etc. It began by examining all the wild, wacky, and wonderful ideas about guidance that abound today, and which are utterly false and lead people into all kinds of difficulties. I remember as a young Christian in the Methodist church hearing all these ideas about guidance and seriously desiring to be led by God – especially as regards what career to pursue (I had heard no small voice in my head as a call such as the Methodists seemed to speak of, and thought it very easy to fall into being guided by my own desire or pride). I would ask people about it and at various youth conferences I would go to the lectures/workshops on “guidance”.

I guess I heard a few useful things, like letting the Bible fall open randomly and blindly putting your finger on a verse is downright stupid, but I think I knew all those things already - the inituitive Christian hermeneutic militates against it. It all really caused me to despair about what to put on my CAO form for a college course to go to after writing my Leaving Certificate exams. Why? Because I had not heard any “voice” telling me what to do – I did not have the kind of subjective, supernatural, experiential “calling” like the Methodists so often spoke of, and so I assumed that either they were just talking trash or God was determined not to guide me. In the end I made a decision, hoping that I would receive some special supernatural revelation later eventually. This of course seriously harmed my assurance too. If I do not receive such guidance in such a manner, does God really love me? Of course, biblically speaking, to receive a direct revelation from God is to be a prophet, and the prophets, along with the apostles, are laid in the foundation of the church with Christ (Eph. 2:20).

Once the coffin had been nailed firmly shut (and a few more planks hammered on top) on all these unclean spirits of “guidance”, the meat of the lecture was expounded. The all-sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work is the answer to how we are to know God's will for us. A careful distinction was made between God's commands and God's purposes (since these can both be referred to ambiguously as His "will"), and it was highlighted in view of this, that while we can certainly be outside God's will of command by walking in disobedience (in which case we ought to repent), we cannot be outside God's good and perfect purposes. Rev. Stewart proved a number of crucial principles from Scripture, and how God guides us as we apply these wise biblical principles to our circumstances:

How does God guide Himself? First of all, is His own glory, and His own glory in Christ, and His own glory in Christ in the salvation of His elect church (Col. 1:16ff).
This model is given in the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:9-13), so we are admonished to seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness (Matt. 6:31-34).
We are aided by the Psalms by which we teach and admonish one another to be guided rightly (e.g. Psalm 23, 25, 37, 73, 119, 143).
It is hypocrisy to claim to seek God's guidance if we are not obeying His commandments – of which the ten commandments are a summary, and include the 4th commandment (Exo.20).
We are guided by many biblical examples, both positive and negative; the patience of Job; the longsuffering of Joseph; and the folly of Jonah.
Luther famously contended that the Spirit guides us by the Word and prayed that he may be content with this alone – and prayer cannot be a substitute for diligent study of Scripture and thinking biblically, but rather, in prayer we ask that we may be given the ability and willingness to do these things.
Advice from others is also not a substitute for the above, but ought to be sought in order that we may benefit from the experience and knowledge of others to make more informed biblical decisions (Prov. 11:14; 24:3-7).

The lecture was finished with a few concrete examples of how to apply biblical principles to various key areas of decision-making; dating, church, and employment. See here also concerning work (I Cor. 7:17-24). Finally, Rev. Stewart mentioned decisions in which we cannot clearly see which is better either way, sometimes it is needless to devote much thought to it, such as what brand of beans to purchase, and in others, at least if the more difficult option is taken, it will work for our sanctification (Jas. 1:3). In all these things of course, we must trust that God works all things together for good (Rom. 8:28), even when we make foolish decisions (as sadly we often do - Prov. 24:9). Thank God for another fabulous lecture, soon to be available on Youtube!

Transmogrification of the Worm

2009-09-26T22:08:00.003+01:00

Through dirt and dust, burrows deep my frame,
Cleaving unto the dung, I writhe.
A worm by nature, a worm by name;
Who am I to have seen thy light?

The stench of my offence piles above
Up and up and higher to the sky.
Repaying corruption to Thy love;
Why wouldest Thou look down to me?

In mud of ignorance, yet with pride
I cannot meet Thy gracious gaze.
Born wallowing in depravity;
I died before that filthy birth.

Thy boundless grace and mercy reached down
Through the vile excrement of me,
Granting me righteousness as a crown,
Giving me wings upon which to fly.

What solid hope has filled my frailty?
What great strength is in my new bones?
What beauty clothes my heart within me?
The glory of Thy light of life.

My eyes can see, and my ears can hear
My mind begins to understand
The sweetest sound of Thy voice so clear,
And the words by which I live.

- Sam W.

John Calvin: Man or Monster?

2009-09-25T18:54:00.011+01:00

Perhaps one of the most controversial, ubiquitously hated and slandered characters in history is the great Reformer John Calvin. Mention his name in many circles, and the response of cold and bitter contempt will be unparalleled (often the same circles of such as who try to hide their worship of men like Rob Bell, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, John Wesley, etc, depending on their particular tastes and the demands of the worldly culture or philosophy in their particular situation). Suggest that you have read a book by this man, and measure how rapidly the accusation will arise that you are following a man instead of Christ!

But I prefer to leave such bigotry and Anabaptistic fanaticism (by which they would cut themselves adrift from all the saints in Christ who came before them - just as they cut off their children) with the attention it deserves. I recognise John Calvin, and many others like him as my spiritual fore-fathers in the faith once delivered unto the saints. And what is he but a minister by whom God brought many to believe in Christ at the time of the Protestant Reformation? The Holy Spirit attributes similar descriptions both the Apostle Paul and to Apollos, who were mere men, yet they were used by God in the ministry of the Gospel of Christ (I Cor. 3:4-9).

Usually Calvin is portrayed as the "Protestant Pope of Geneva", a cruel tyrant, the evil executor of Michel Servet, a prideful polemicist, and many other horrid depictions besides, such as know no end. Few others have been smitten with so many manifestly rotten and vile slanders, but what is the truth about this Reformer? Have those who take so great a delight, along with so little care in calumniating him ever endeavoured to explore this enigma? That is very doubtful in my experience. More often than not they hold merely to hearsay about twisted representations of his doctrine and life. This book dispels such misrepresentations, and demonstrates unequivocally from his actual correspondences, reviewed by an excellent student of his history, how deeply filled this man of God was with great compassion, zealous love, moving sympathy, and fierce devotion to God, the church, and his dear fellow saints, friends, wife, and family.

Since I finished the lengthy introduction, I've been craving an opportunity to write a review of this book. Now, a shock for everyone - it is neither doctrinal, not polemical. It is simply biographical. Last Saturday evening I read "The Humanness of John Calvin: The Reformer as Husband, Father, Pastor, and Friend" written by Richard Stauffer, and translated from the French by George Shriver. You will not find a study of Calvin's theology here, though a new book by Engelsma which I am persuaded by many, deals with this subject superbly (I hope to review this in due course too, though I've a heavy weight of other books to get through first).

The author portrays the Christian man Calvin, as a man deeply connected with both the greatest of joys and griefs of his friends. As I have read a number of Calvin's works this year (since it is after all the 500th anniversary of his birth), I have for the most part read a lot of his polemical works on various issues of quite practical importance for myself. I find much encouragement in his godly argumentation, lofty respect for Holy Scripture, powerful logic, and uncompromising detestation of all manner of blasphemies, idolatries, superstitions and heresies. Yet, I perhaps have greater joy in seeing the sweet love for God and the church from which his fierce polemics flow. From this he derives his steadfast tenacious commitment to the truth of Scripture, the grace of God by which his heart was bound to the lives of the saints.

Read this book, and see how deeply Calvin shared in the trials and troubles of his many friends. See how hard he worked in maintained these friendships over great distances, and great differences, and in great hardships. And perhaps then, you may see a glimpse of the fruit of that true theology which God had granted to him in a great measure of clarity. And then perhaps, see how difficult it would be to come close to emulating such an great example of genuine Christianity. May many think twice before blasting him with all the criticisms they can muster. May we first take the planks out of our own eyes, and remember that there is none that doeth good, and it is God that justifieth - and that, not by works, lest we should all perish everlastingly.

I thank God for faithful ministers and godly examples like John Calvin that He has granted graciously to His church, because I know that it pleases God to place such treasures in jars of clay (II Cor. 4:6-7). This book definitely wins my approval. I don't know where the best place to purchase the book is, but a simple web search should find it no problem.

Sam W.

P.S. I felt that a few quotes would also be appropriate, first one that cannot be found in this book, but found in Calvin's famous reply to Sadoleto's attempt to win over the Genevans:

"For then only do pastors edify the Church, when, besides leading docile souls to Christ placidly, as with the hand, they are also armed to repel the machinations of those who strive to impede the work of God."

And from the book itself, as a hint of its contents, wherein Calvin is writing to Guillaume Farel concerning the plague that had swept through Strasbourg, including his own household:

"To the cruelty of the sorrow has been violently added an anxious fear for those who survive. Night and day my wife is in my thoughts, deprived of advice since she is denied her husband's presence. Bereavement over my excellent Charles [that is, de Richebourg] torments me in a particular way - he, who in four days had been deprived of his only brother and of his teacher whom he loved as a father. These events bring me such sadness that they completely overwhelm my soul and break my spirit."

Try to call him "monster" after reading this little book.

Visit to the Protestant Reformed churches in Michigan!

2009-09-19T12:55:00.013+01:00

It's just been about a week since I've been back in Ireland - and I have been hard at work! I recently visited the United States of America for the first time, and for two weeks. We spent two wonderful weeks with the saints in the Protestant Reformed churches in Michigan! There are so many aspects of this time that bring me great delight when I consider their memory. I'd like to record a few here - what I love about the Protestant Reformed churches and what in particular I loved in the time that we spent there. We met a lot of people, but I won't go into all those details.

"After 500 Years: John Calvin for Reformed Churches Today" - how much did I enjoy this conference? In many ways. First, of course, the speeches and lectures themselves, all of which will be available on the conference DVD which can be ordered now from the website. Each lecture was superb - but I admit that I enjoyed Prof. Engelsma's on "Calvin's Doctrine of the Covenant" the most. I hear that a lot of the speakers had much more material than they were able to squeeze into the time frame - so I hope that if a written format is released, this material will be available.

Rev. Chris Connors spoke with great insight on "Calvin's Doctrine of Predestination", exhorting us over and over - "thus far, and no further!" Should we draw back from the confession and proclamation of God's glory in unconditional election and reprobation, we are guilty of unbelief - yet should we attempt to go beyond what has been revealed to us in God's counsel by vain speculation - we are guilty of idolatry, crafting a false god of our own making. I had an opportunity to speak with Rev. Connors on a few occasions also, for which I am very thankful.

Rev. Stewart, endearingly referred to as "the Irish Bulldog", spoke of "Calvin's Doctrine of Justification", how any justification with which we cannot consider the Judgment Day "with singular delight" is not the justification revealed in the Gospel of Christ. We are greatly indebted to God's work through the frail, sickly, compassionate Reformer. Prof. Gritters reminded us at length of the example set for Reformed ministers in John Calvin, on how rarely God grants such gifts to His church, and what difference it would make if any today could come close to emulating the life and work of Calvin.

The other masterful lectures dealt with Calvin's struggle for church discipline by Prof. Cammenga, as church reformer by Prof. Dykstra, and as expositor and preacher by Rev. Keys. There was a lot that could be learnt from each of these. I was inspired to purchase a number of books while I was there - though I'll leave that discussion for more specific book reviews.

I greatly appreciated all the Protestant Reformed people that I was given the privilege of meeting at the conference too. They are certainly a "peculiar people"! Peculiar especially for their great kindness and love for the truth. Time would fail me to tell of all the wonderful virtues and treasures of God's glory I found among these people. Sure, they have their sins too, and certainly we only have the small beginnings of obedience, but those glimmers of pure light are enough to blind such people as myself who live amongst such deep darkness. These delightful and beautiful virtues are the fruit of true Spirit-filled preaching of the whole counsel of God in the lives of God's people. Of this I have no doubt.

Oh, and they were yet so quick to point to their faults! How often we heard the lament, "We are so ungrateful for what God has given us!" And how often they would tell us how we had encouraged them! What a glorious God we have that such earthen vessels as ourselves could yet be employed by the hand of our gracious Father for our mutual edification. Yet I am still quite certain that we were the more encouraged party.

Needless to say, we were so loaded with invitations to dinner, that our friend Martyn was soon to be employed as a full-time secretary to organise our busy social calendar. For two weeks we learnt the rules of "Dutch bingo", and experienced exquisite culinary delights (some more so than others, I am constrained to concede). But all this faded into nothing compared to the precious fellowship we were constantly greeted with. I miss everyone terribly, and I hope that God may grant to us that we could meet again soon. We made sure to give plenty of invitations to the British Reformed Fellowship Conference in Wales next year.

Perhaps the most shocking was how in the homes of these Reformed believers we could see a glorious manifestation of God's covenant with us and our children, maintained from generation to generation of them that fear Him. Seeing the beauty of this doctrine put in practice by the grace of God, serves to demonstrate how much we must detest the error of the Anabaptists for the sake of God's glory and love for His church for which Christ died, lambs as well as sheep.

There is much more that I could write – we were granted many more precious memories that could be shared. But for now I'll leave this here, and perhaps I relate more at another time. Hold your breath for episode two of our American escapades! Coming soon, with accounts of highly lauded seminary classes, and much more!

Sam W.

UPDATE: I've been informed by a certain PR gentleman that I have portrayed the PR folk in too favourable a light. This is quite possible, since he knows them far more intimately than I. But speaking of my experiences, and those particular people I met, I consider my representation faithful and accurate. I could have chosen to be more critical and tried to highlight their sins, but I am quite confident that they already have plenty of people around them to do this for them everyday. I feel the efforts of my criticism would be better employed elsewhere first - and of course first of all at myself.

God works in a mysterious way - His wonders to perform!

2009-08-28T13:53:00.007+01:00

I have just finished reading one of the most outrageous, shocking, man-humbling, God-exalting, books ever compiled:

Calvin's Calvinism - including God's Eternal Predestination and Secret Providence, A Brief Reply, and Reply to the Slanderous Reports, written by that inescapably biblical Reformer, John Calvin, of unparalleled significance in that glorious work of God, the Protestation Reformation, and translated from the Latin by Henry Cole, first published in 1856, and now published again by the RFPA with absolutely essential and hugely helpful historical introductions by Prof. Russell J. Dykstra of the Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary.

Anyone who has quarrel with Calvinism can turn here to read the man's own words as he demonstrates with candid language and compelling truth-power how thoroughly biblical and apostolic, not his doctrine, but God's doctrine of absolute, all-encompassing, unconditional, glorious, good, and perfect predestination is. Opponents of this doctrine need to take up their bitter argument with God Himself, and read His own Holy Word to be soundly refuted and silenced. Calvin, perhaps more capably and more clearly than others who have endeavoured to write on this subject defending the glory and majesty of the eternal and immutable God who works all things after His own good pleasure, wields the Sword of Spirit mightily, by God's grace to rend asunder all the calumnies and insane ravings given birth by the unbridled, astonishing pride, and bestial reasoning of heretics. Need I say, read it!

In this masterpiece of exegesis and apologetics, Calvin almost preempts the theodicy of the final judgment on the last day, so far does he see through this dark glass into that unapproachable light. Brandishing the revealed things of God as a mighty hammer, he crushes the unimaginable arrogance of those mere mortals of clay who presume to pontificate upon the supposed unrighteousness in God's secret things: "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" (Rom. 9:20).

Calvin says memorably that their purpose is nothing more than, "...to fabricate monsters of [their] own brain and to slaughter them in [their] own imagination, glorying to [themselves] in a mighty triumph..." He expresses the futility of their audacity and profanity very clearly, "Now, then, dog as you are, bark as loud as you will. You will no more obscure the glory of God by your revilings than you can obscure the brightness of the sun by spitting in his blazing face."

But this is not a subject for mere talk - it is massively practical. It changes everything in how we view everything that ever happens, or has happened, or will happen everywhere, without exception. And it changes how we live in that assured confidence - the confidence that God works all things for the good of them that love Him, who are the called according to His purpose (Rom. 8:28). Calvin calls it one of the "first principles" of godliness.

Take for example, the recent atrocity committed by Mark Driscoll, reviewed perhaps as graciously as possible here: http://www.irishcalvinist.com/?p=3221

To put things in perspective, you can read an interview between Michael Horton and Robert Schuller here: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/free-articles/interview-with-robert-schuller.html

There's no question, Schuller is a wolf, teaching people to be lovers of themselves - that the ultimate condition of sin is not loving yourself - i.e. being proud of yourself. Now Mark Driscoll himself has some very objectionable views (some very dangerous!) - but I am still hoping that he will grow out of them. Maybe not - and for sure I would not recommend his preaching to anyone, even though he is a breath of fresh air compared to most. My own comments, were these:

Pragmatism is a heinous and evil sin – especially for a Calvinist. I’m trying to be gracious with Driscoll, because he’s come from terrible stuff, and improved a lot in many areas. I think he’s still got a lot to learn. But this is one lesson which I think he should have learnt before, and I hope that he will see this and not do likewise again.

It’s always difficult for onlookers I think – because we know people need to hear the Gospel – it’s always difficult for us to say that no matter what our ideas are or what we think would work, that He requires that we worship Him according to His commandments and no other way. Pragmatism is a [sic] evil philosophy – one for which Saul lost his kingship. This should be a warning for us.

But the other side of it is this. As Calvinists, while we ought to be confident in God’s unhindered purposes when we refuse to fall into pragmatism – however enticing it may be, we also can see that just as God uses all things for good – he can use even the sin of pragmatism for good. It may be that God used Driscoll’s sin here to bring life and light to members of that congregation.

Who are we to reply against God? Did not God cause David to count the number of the children of Israel? Did not God use the Babylonians to chastise His people? Did not God use the Jews and Gentiles and Pilate and the Sanhedrin to crucify Christ? God performed righteous acts in all these things – carrying out His good and perfect purposes – but there is still a warning.

Calvinism is the sworn enemy of antinomianism! Shall we sin that grace may increase? GOD FORBID! But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? GOD FORBID! And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come? Whose damnation is just. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

In love for Driscoll, we ought to have more than a raised eyebrow for him ("open rebuke is better than hidden love") – even though we worship God for having brought the Gospel to that congregation (even through such an instrument), and while we certainly do not foolishly charge God with Driscoll’s sin of pragmatism.

I just finished reading this book by Calvin – amazing how it deals with this: http://rfpa.org/Scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=59

“O the depth…!”

The point is this - that God works everything for good does nothing to justify the evil sins of the instruments He uses - including Mark Driscoll, as much as their sins do nothing to mar the supreme righteousness of God, and the guilt can only be ascribed to the sinner, not to the one who is just and true in all His works. Anyone who would try to deny this need only study the prophet Habbakkuk.

I have said it before that Arminianism is at base, Romanism, and atheism. Nothing could be more evident when we look at the doctrine of God's providence. Theodicy is not a concern of Arminianism, because in this hellish system, there is no God of providence. This is their insane and heretical "apologetic". I recently heard a man reasoning from the supposed free will of man, who went so far as to say that not God, but people are in control. One cannot argue with the validity of his argument - only with his premise. I am glad that the Bible denies this so strongly. So, I conclude this review of Calvin's best treatment of predestination with a memorable comment from Prof. David J. Engelsma:

"Always the gospel of salvation by grace alone provokes the response that this gospel denies the responsibility of man and makes God the author of sin (see Romans 3:5-8, 31; Romans 6:1; Romans 9:19). If the message of the church does not elicit this response, the church may well ask whether it is preaching the gospel of grace."

Do you believe the Gospel of grace? Is the defense of God's glory in all providence a concern for you? It certainly was for Calvin.

- Sam W.

P.S. This book has many other commendable merits, which at this point I'll only briefly mention. In it, Calvin's absolutely repudiates any notion of a "free offer" calling it a "puerile dream". He repeatedly, and emphatically, and logically, argues that God does not will that all are saved, and that it is a denial of the oneness, and immutability of God's will to teach such a thing. He touches on the subject of infant baptism - in denying the "absurdities" of Pighius, he also denies the imaginations of those who now currently teach a conditional covenant - proving unequivocably that the sacraments profit only the elect, just as the PRCA hold and teach.

Clarkians would appreciate also how Calvin never allows an inconsistency or contradiction. He often exclaims on how we can only see so far into those depths of God's wisdom, and frequently warns us of presumption and pride in trying to peer beyond the limits of our own feeble minds, but at the same time, he utterly denies any form of Van Tilianism - indeed defending God's providence by showing how it is logically consistent, and refuting his opponents by showing how their positions is logically inconsistent. Finally, in Reply to the Slanderous Reports, he also underscores, and exposes the profound idiocy of building upon human imaginations, instead of upon Scripture alone. At this point, I have to quote at length:

"As to your description of the nature of the true God, let readers judge how appropriately you argue concerning his divine being from the absurd fact that you make the beginning of all true knowledge of him to proceed from common sense. That there is a God is a truth received by the one consent of all nations and all ages, because the seed and principle of this knowledge is imparted by nature in every human mind. But how shall reason define what God is, when by its own power of sight, it can do nothing but turn the truth into a lie and adulterate whatever of light and understanding true religion and faith possess. The Holy Spirit commands us to become fools, if we would be the true learners of heavenly doctrine, because the natural man himself can neither receive nor taste anything of divine wisdom. On the contrary, you would have human reason and common sense to form a judgment of the great and adorable God. And you would not only set up reason, which by its blindness ever extinguishes God's glory as a leader and guide, but you would exalt that blind reason above Scripture itself. What marvel is it, then, if you should permit, without hesitation, religions of all kinds to be confounded together and should consider the Turk - who is enveloped in the deliriums of Mohammed and who adores as his deity no one knows what - as much a worshiper of God as he who calls upon the Father of Christ our redeemer, instructed by the sure word and faith of the everlasting gospel? Although you do not patronise infidels seriously is a fact proclaimed aloud by those sarcastic grins of yours, which show your teeth gnashing at every plainest and holiest article of our faith while the excuses that you make for the superstitions of all nations prove your malicious purpose to be to root out of the earth every doctrine of that holy religion that the sacred oracles of God reveal and teach."

Then Calvin places his finger on the vital point:

"Out of that very human reason that is the mother of all errors, you form that God of yours, who wills, without any election or predestination of his own, that all men should be saved. Has, then, the word election, which occurs so frequently in Scripture, no meaning whatever? Is it altogether a vain and empty term? Have the law, the prophets, and the gospel no meaning whatever when they everywhere proclaim aloud that all those chosen by the eternal counsel of God before the foundation of the world are called and illuminated unto salvation? We repeat, is the united and harmonious testimony of the law, the prophets, and the gospel an utter vanity when they pronounce, free from all ambiguity, that the source and cause of eternal life is the free love of God by which He has loved and embraced not all mankind, but those out of mankind whom He pleased? What will you gain after all, I ask you, by thus roaring against this truth a hundred times over? You dazzle the sight of the ignorant and the inexperienced by setting before their eyes as a shining cloud your doctrine that God will have all men to be saved."

Modern moderate "Calvinists", who everywhere boast the same doctrines as these heretics that Calvin is refuting, are manifestly not proper Calvinists at all. More importantly, they are not biblical - which is exactly what Calvin here exposes.

How greatly God has blessed us through the CPRC

2009-07-22T13:29:00.006+01:00

The last year has been amazing. We have visited the CPRC a number of times. Once, we visited for a short weekend, and I remember spending the afternoon with Francesco De Lucia (one of CPRC's zealous translators) at Philip Rainey's house. We had a marvellous lunch, finished off with reading and discussing Luke 18 together - one of my favourite passages for the defense of not merely baptism of believing members of households, but infant baptism too, and especially, since "of such are the kingdom of God" and except we receive the kingdom of God as a little child we shall "in no wise enter therein".

It was a great encouragement too, to spend the afternoon talking with Philip and his wife and Francesco, to learn about his struggles in a compromising church so similar to my own and how "the lines are fallen unto [us] in pleasant places; yea [we] have a goodly heritage" (Psalm 16). It is good to hear the confession of the saints, and how we dwell in unity together as brothers like the unity of the Spirit that anoints our great high priest, Jesus Christ, and which fills God's temple (Psalm 133) where there is eternal life in the knowledge of Him (John 17:3). I have to explain, that here in Limerick, I would hear no-one outside the small number of the LRF who would reject the "free offer" and stand for it as Philip Rainey has done, and suffered for it - although this has clearly worked out for his good, and our good too, as his witness encourages me to follow such a godly example. The scarcity of such a witness makes it all the more precious to me.

Each time I visit the CPRC, especially joining them in the public worship service, I am quite in awe of how God closely dwells among His people, and the unimaginable difference between the true and the false church. Before I first came, I had never experienced anything like it, nor could I have imagined it - and I am further convinced of the extreme darkness covering this nation, and of the overflowing abundance of God's grace in Christ, flowing to me, and all the saints from sovereign and gracious predestination. Nothing else could explain why my eyes have been opened while so many others remain obstinately blind to the things made manifest to them all.

The mealtimes at the Stewarts, and our walks/hikes together are exceedingly precious to me also, where we spoke like men who dream (Psalm 126), and rejoiced in God, peering into the everlasting truths revealed to us in Scripture by our God and Saviour, and singing psalms to Him in thankfulness. These are marvellous things, which seem almost out of place here on earth, and amidst so much evil and sin, in the world and even in ourselves. To be singing the songs of heaven, and dwelling with the God of heaven, and hearing His heavenly voice, all here on earth! That is a wondrous thing. I long for the day in which we in the LRF, if it so pleases our ascended Lord, should be granted a minister of the word - and yet even now how greatly are we blessed to have such unity and fellowship, and joy in the truth, to be remembering Zion together, here in Babylon! Visiting the CPRC has shown me a little bit of what Zion is like, so that I would long for it more and more dearly, even with tears.

For this reason, we ought always to be zealous that God is worshipped only according to his commandments and no other way - for how can we profane that holy hill with sick and lame sacrifices (Mal. 1:14), and idolatry? The hypocrites here, and false churches constantly cry out for compromise, and the glory of God to be brought lower than a man, and for Jerusalem to be torn to the ground, only that they can mock the saints with vain superstitions, blasphemies, and abominations. And they even seem oblivious to how greatly God hates such obscenities - and in such blindness are incapable of loving God or His saints, only objecting that we do not follow their traditions and that we strenuously object to their evil practices and demonic doctrines.

And in that same ignorance, they leave true believers, the scattered sheep, also in ignorance to be tossed to and fro with every kind of deceit. How gracious God has been to have shed His light here on us! And how great our responsibility is to show forth His praises, so that the hypocrites are uncovered and their deceits laid low in the dust. To see the lampstand in Ballymena stirs us up in praying, hoping, and working that God may establish such a pillar and ground of the truth here.

So, it is encouraging to see God at work in some of our close friends, who more frequently join us on Sundays, gradually having the scales taken from their eyes. One came with us to the CPRC once too, and we spent a lot of time with Francesco, and visited the Giant's Causeway, and the Silent Valley reservoir. Of course it was the fellowship which I appreciated most. Conversations with Francesco are always a great blessing to me, and I think they were for everyone else there too. I remember that Sunday we heard a sermon on what it means to be a true Jew, and also a sermon on the Father's hand in providence. There is no comparison between biblical preaching, and the poisoned gloop that is served up in the "churches" in Limerick.

Am I being too harsh, or too extreme? Is it as bad as I paint it? Definitely not - probably not harsh and extreme enough, because the false church is always even immeasurably worse on the inside than it looks on the outside (Eze. 8). "Nice" people abound here, but hell too is full of "nice" people. How are they "nice" anyway when they contradict and oppose Scripture (the very words of the Spirit of Jesus Christ!) at every turn - just as they oppress and crush the saints? I cannot think of the blessedness of my visits to the CPRC without contrasting them with the Satanic synagogues here in Limerick - each commends and vividly illuminates the true nature of the other, so that I rejoice more in the former, and detest more the latter. It is the difference between the kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of darkness. One is a sheepfold, the other is a pig sty.

When Rev. Stewart was here, he preached a fiery sermon on the fires of division that Christ has come to bring upon the earth, and I found myself willing too, that this fire were already kindled here in Limerick (though it is in part), so that there would be a clear separation between those who love God by His grace, and those who hate Him by nature as reprobate children of Satan. His exhortations were much needed, as it is very difficult not to cave in to the pressure exerted on us from every direction. But we stand by the power of God who graciously sends us His word, and His strength and truth fights our battles for us on these banks of the Red Sea, so that we will see greater wonders than these. Left to ourselves, I shudder to think of the depths of destruction to which our depravity would take us.

There is so much I could tell of our time with Rev. Stewart and his wife, and how wonderful a time we had in the services, worshipping the living God in our midst, and in our meals and peaceful times in the afternoons. Each of us greatly benefitted from this time. It was powerful reminder of how there is always a remnant according to the election of grace - another passage that was preached on from I Kings 19 about the still small voice. But I'll not write a book here - yet.

I should finally say that the lectures have been superb, and I had long and enjoyable discussions with Rev. Stewart about evolutionism and creationism, which is an area of particular interest to me, from a scientific perspective too. It is amazing how any real scientist could believe evolutionary theory, except for total depravity. Of course, the materialists, like stupid monkeys, are busy chewing off the branch that they are sitting on - because any sort of science is impossible without biblical presuppositions. Atheism is the worst religion for science, since it inherently denies all the basic tenets that science is based upon. No surprise there, about the marvellous capabilities of the human nature to hold the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18). So, I am further astounded by the miracle of grace that has redeemed us, and therefore may we continue to stir one another up to praise our Rock.

I am very excited about the prospect of visiting the saints of the PR churches in America!

Peace be to all the saints only (I Cor. 16:22),

Sam W.

Invitation to biblical preaching!

2009-07-04T10:16:00.005+01:00

Dear, yet scattered, believers in Limerick,

See details below for the next upcoming lecture held by the Limerick Reformed Fellowship. Please let others know, spread the news by using one of the primary means that God has appointed in personal evangelism - the invitation! I am convinced that you who love the Bible and spend much time meditating upon its glorious truths about our gracious Saviour, all know very well that there is an extreme lack of good, solid, and substantial biblical preaching in Limerick at the moment (the difference is between night and day). Now it is my duty (not to be shirked, by any means) to only speak the truth here in honesty and clarity (you must judge whether it is), but if the truth offends, that is not my fault (Gal. 4:16), and if I offend, then please forgive me. We are in a good example of the captivity in Babylon (Psa. 137) and the long-prophesied "famine of the Word" (Amos 8:11-14). And this is even though the Great Commission is that all peoples are taught to obey all things that Christ has commanded us (Matt. 28:20), and that the church must teach the whole counsel of God (Acts 20:17-38), and keep nothing back that is profitable (and all Scripture is profitable - II Tim. 3:16)!

Yet there is much that the broad local groups who proudly wear the name "church" would shun to teach (but who do not bear the marks thereof, e.g. "World Outreach Christian Church" who profanely preach that earthly prosperity is the Gospel of God - I Tim. 1:5-20; I Tim. 6:3-10; "Christ Church" which allows any and all heathen and ungodly hypocrites to be partakers at the Lord's Table - I Cor. 11:27-34; "Abundant Life" which despises the Spirit who speaks by the Holy Scriptures by calling the imaginations and emotions of their own sinful hearts to be God's revelation - Jer. 23:15-17; "Mallow Street Christian Fellowship" which rebukes those who testify to the Gospel of sovereign grace alone, and against the errors of Rome's works-righteousness - Gal. 1:6-10; 5:1-12; II Tim. 4:1-5, and this is merely a cursory glance at the multitudinous wicked errors and profanities by which they manifest the lack of love both for our Holy and Almighty God and for His beloved redeemed people, and this I think is not by my judgment, but Scripture's testimony to them - John 12:48; 7:24). Ought we to be ashamed of the Gospel (Rom. 1:16-17)? Otherwise how is God's righteousness revealed from faith to faith (Rom. 10:13-17), and how will God save and sanctify His people by the truth (John 17:17-19)? But the foundation of the Lord stands sure, He knows who are His (II Tim. 2:19; Rom. 8:28-39), so let us depart from iniquity.

This is a good opportunity for starved people to get well fed (Isa. 55:1-13), to be more fully prepared in our life-long battle against our own sinful natures, the world of the ungodly, and Satan who is the spirit at work in the children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2). Not only that, but amongst the rampant disunity (which must be unity in doctrine if it is to be unity in love - I Cor. 1:10; I Cor 13:6 - and neglect of doctrine is not godly unity, it is merely unity with Satan's damning lies - I Tim. 4:16) among believers in Limerick, with God's sheep being scattered (Jer. 23:1-40 see also: http://www.cprcextra.co.uk/Godsnearness.mp3) and blown about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14), trained and qualified and lawfully called and ordained ministers are God's primary appointed means in this age to bring about unity (Eph. 4:1-16). And this work is His not ours - for we have strength neither to work nor will unity, except by God's working and willing in us for His name's sake (Phil. 2:13; Isa. 59:1-21). This is why we hold these lectures - for your eternal good, so that we all are conformed to the image of Christ.

Finally with this exhortation, which I hope you will consider and be stirred up by (and as the Bereans, study the Scriptures which for good reason with patience I have noted carefully, since Christ's words are spirit and life - John 6:58-65), I also want to recommend this sermon which speaks about our office as prophets in God's kingdom - and as such our own individual and corporate responsibility for the preaching, and how to exercise that responsibility for the glory of God, and the good of His people in every tribe, tongue, and nation. As a fireman ought to know and be acquainted with his office as fireman, to fulfill it, so every believer ought to know and be instructed in the exercise of their triple office as king, priest, and prophet (I Pet. 2:9). Otherwise, there is no end to the fiery catastrophe (Hos. 4:6; II Thess. 1:8; John 17:3). See: http://www.cprfextra.co.uk/officebeliever5.mp3

"For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ. And this I pray, that your love may more and more abound in knowledge and in all judgment; That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ; Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God." - Phil. 1:8-11.

Now, I have told you in advance so that you can plan to keep the time free and come if at all possible, and I have endeavoured (though feebly and amidst much sinfulness and pride, for which I hope you will be enabled to forgive me), and will continue to strive according to God's working in me, despite my many and grievous sins and failings, to love you more, and to seek to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Christ, for which reason I cannot but cling to the truth (it is our belt) which has fallen in the streets in this city (Isa. 59:14-16), and the establishment of a pillar and ground of the truth in a local instituted manifestation of the church (I Tim. 3:15), reformed according to the Word of God alone (not after man's traditions, or his superstitions, or imaginations, or feelings, all of which are the vile overflow of his totally depraved, even Satanic nature - John 8:42-47, worse than a world of sewage - Matt. 15:3-20; Mark 7:9-23; Col. 2:20-23; John 4:23-24; Gen. 8:21; Jer. 17:9; Heb. 13:15; Mal. 1:6-2:8 and we are all the priests of His heavenly Kingdom), in which God's sheep will hear the voice of the Great Shepherd who gave His life for us (John 10:1-30).

And He will without fail lead us who believe in Christ alone, though through perils and troubles in this Babylon, which is doomed to destruction for our sakes (Isa. 43; Rev. 18-19; Psa. 137; Rom. 9:16-23), to green pastures and quiet waters, to dwell in the house of the Lord forever (Psa. 23; Eph 2:1-22). May we be obedient to Him, by His grace alone, that in all things He would be glorified, as He is worthy. If nothing else commends this lecture to you, for your good, and the good of others, then at least may my witness (however frail and flawed) in this message commend it to you by the authority and clarity of the perfect, powerful Word of God which communicates lucidly with us (by the soul-illuminating, eye-opening Spirit of God who mightily causes us sinners to believe it!) far better than we can communicate amongst ourselves. I also still hope that we will be able to support one another in working and praying together for biblical reformation, as it is the only strait (i.e. tortuous!) and narrow way in which we must seek to glorify and enjoy God, for the salvation of predestined souls, and the worship He deserves in all purity (Psa. 24:3-6).

Love in Christ, who has purchased us as His everlasting possession to show forth His praises (I Pet. 1:18-25),

Your servant, as every believer is, for His sake,

Sam.

P.S. You may pass this message on to whoever you think may profit from it. I'm especially thinking of lots of people in Christ Church whom I remember. It would be good to see them again, and for them to know that I did not leave to forsake them, but to benefit them, Lord-willing, if they are His.

--

PUBLIC LECTURE
The Four Horsemen of Revelation 6
What are the 4 horsemen?
Do they ride forth today?
How do they help believers and the church understand the world
and history, calming our fears and bringing us comfort?
Speaker: Rev. Angus Stewart
of the Covenant Protestant Reformed Church
Ballymena, N.I. (www.cprc.co.uk)
Venue: An Cistin, Conradh na Gaeilge Hall, Thomas Street, Limerick City.
7.30pm, Thursday 30th July, 2009
www.limerickreformed.com

A Contemporary Observer's Scriptural Iniquiry into the 1859 "Revival"

2009-06-10T17:44:00.005+01:00

In my continuing analysis of the bizarre, unbiblical, and antichristian phenomena of neo-pentecostalism, fake charismaticism, unscriptural revivalism, carnal enthusiasm, and false spirituality, I've been reading a book by the Rev. William Hamilton, written around 1859 about that much-lauded "Irish Revival" which started in Kells.

While I am sure that I could find a few disagreements about certain particulars mentioned by the author (as in fact, Rev. Stewart of the CPRC also says in his foreward to the book), his work in this book is of great value in correctly diagnosing the current fanatical insanity we can observe not only in explicitly Pentecostal and Charismatic circles - but increasingly and almost ubiquitously in traditionally faithful denominations. Many who claim to be scriptural and even Reformed devote an inordinate amount of time and effort into promoting and encouraging revivalism, and in particular for this island, the Revival of 1859 in Kells.

Rev. Hamilton's book, "An Iniquiry into the Scriptural Character of the Revival of 1859" makes it very plain that such an attitude is wholly misplaced, as he lays bare the genuine characteristics of the 1859 Revival - and by extension, all revivalism - and reveals their sinister nature in the light of the very foundational truths of Scripture regarding salvation, the church, preaching, pastors and teachers, and much more.

I leave you with this quote, and counsel you fervently to read the book, and to afford all such phenomena a similar attitude of always first bringing it to the test of Scripture in which the Holy Spirit reveals His will:

"... it is the supernatural that is relied upon in their favour. We must, therefore, pause a little to shew the unscriptural nature of their position and conduct as manifested in this Revival. Look at it.

"Men and women, boys and girls of every description, many of them, according to their own statements, of the worst character, and as ignorant as they were immoral, and yet they become, in a few days or weeks - in some instances in a few hours - the teachers and leaders in the largest religious assemblies, and little, if any good, can be attained without them; and woe to the minister who will not approve of them, encourage them, nor employ them. It is no imaginary evil, no shadowy phantom, that he is called upon to encounter.

"The first thought that arises in the mind is, will the next generation believe that such a state of things existed in the year 1859? Very likely it will be recorded as a gracious Revival; but we leave the future to the future; we are in the midst of these sad realities, and it is our duty to deal with them." (pp. 142-143)

I hope that you will take the opportunity to purchase the book and study it closely. Again find the book here: http://www.cprf.co.uk/bookstore/1859revival.htm

- Sam W.

My Impression of the "Greenchurch" Movement.

2009-06-10T11:28:00.005+01:00

My brother-in-law recently asked me for my thoughts on a subject which I see as rather crucial and neglected here in Limerick - a city full of false ecumenism, and independentism. For that reason, I decided to share this on my blog too:

First the invitation and link:

I am going to link in something here and want to hear your thoughts on this:

http://darinj.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/leaving-church-to-find-jesus/

Leaving “church” to find Jesus « greenchurch
Source: darinj.wordpress.com
One of the hardest decisions I have had to make in my life was the decision to leave the institutional church. You get taught, as I was that Jesus is only interested in working through “local churches”. ...

And my response:

The guy in that link you sent me, whether he knows it or not is a schismatic. His position on ecclesiology is fundamentally against true biblical unity. Pastors, which are the primary gifts (charismata) of the ascended Spirit-pouring Christ for this era, are crucial for unity and maturity among believers (Eph. 4 - that's what a genuinely charismatic Christian should be cherishing!). Not only that, but the called and ordained preachers of the Word are the life-giving voice of Jesus Christ to His sheep (Eph. 2:14-17; Rom. 10:14-17; John 10:1-16; 6:63; II Tim. 1:6 (gift/charisma again!); II Tim. 2:2).

And the purpose and aim of a denomination is actually biblical unity in doctrine and practice among local churches, not division, and is scriptural (e.g the synod/council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the working together of the Gentile churches to provide for the Jerusalem churches in famine and persecution, e.g. II Cor. 8 and 9). And this is even though there must be division on account of heresies, and so the feast of unleavened bread must be kept in amongst churches (I Cor. 11:18-19, Gal. 1:6-10; I Cor. 5:6-7). There is corporate responsibility because the churches are all part of the one body of Christ, and so denominational separation must occur, when a church is listening to the voice of Satan rather than the voice of Christ. Three marks demonstrate this - the erosion of true biblical preaching (so that no longer is the Gospel preached but all kinds of other useless nonsense) - which means that Christ is no longer speaking in that church, at least in the official capacity.

Instead of receiving spirit and life through the preaching then, the true saints receive poisoned food and starve (Amos 8:11-13). The Christian life is one of relationship with God, and if we are not hearing Christ voice in the preaching especially (Bible-reading, and private study notwithstanding) then the primary part of our communication with God is cut off - and communication is the most essential thing in a relationship. And so this is why, when the preaching in a church is compromised, it quickly becomes utterly apostate (Gal. 5:7-9; I Cor. 15:33; Heb. 12:15), and the saints there can often feel like staying at home or retreating (or keeping quiet) - but what they should do is bear witness as much as they can to that apostasy and reject it if their warning is not heeded, for we are all prophets, priests, and kings (I Pet. 2:9 etc). And so they ought to seek the establishment of a new lump, unleavened by that Pharisaic false religion (Matt. 16:6-12; Mark 8:15-21; Luke 12:1-12).

The preaching being compromised, then the other two marks of a false church closely follow, the sacraments are defiled and distorted, and the church discipline is turned on its head. All manner of vile corruptions are introduced, such as the teaching that baptism causes regeneration, or denying baptism to the children of believers (who as much as the adults are to be treated as church-members, regardless of whether they are elect or reprobate, but if reprobate, they will only manifest this later - and should undergo church discipline just like any church-member, culminating is excommunication in the face of prolonged impenitence). The truth of baptism becomes utterly obscured by false teaching, because the sacraments are only edifying if received in faith properly, in other words, only if correctly understood. Baptism is a sign and seal of the righteousness the elect have not of ourselves, but of the faith of Christ, as circumcision was to Abraham and his descendents in their generations (Gen. 17:7; Rom. 4:11).

Commonly the Lord's Supper is profaned by opening it to any and all carnal unbelieving wicked, manifest hypocrites, and heretics, instead of the elders guarding the table by the keys of the kingdom - preaching and church discipline (Matt. 16:19; John 20:21-23; Matt. 18:15-18; II Cor. 2:10; I Pet. 5:1-3; John 21:15-17; Acts 20:17-38). And this brings further judgment upon the entire congregation (I Cor. 11:20-34). This overseeing involves preaching the significance and meaning of the Lord's Supper, admonishing the saints to examine themselves before receiving Christ spiritually (not bodily/physically) by faith at the Supper, and refusing access to those under church discipline, or those who they do not know whether they adhere to biblical doctrine and walk a godly life.

And certainly the Lord's Supper is receiving Christ spiritually only by faith (not just a fancy symbol as some fanatical Anabaptists teach), as John 6:31-69 and I Cor. 10:1-22 teach. It should be apparent that the third mark of church discipline is necessarily reversed. Instead of disciplining the impenitent and heretics, those faithful and bold saints who witness against the apostasy are disciplined. The only sins then become schism and lack of political correctness. The false church then aids the evil beastly world power in persecuting the true saints. In the face of such apostasy, the believer has the right, and the responsibility to reform the church by establishing a new separate church institute whilst seeking fellowship with other churches that have remained faithful. If a church is not always reforming (according to the word of God) - it is deforming (conforming to the wicked world under the authority of Satan). So the general picture is that if all things are carried out according to the Word of God, then it is a true church that fellowship within a denomination is to be sought with, and from which no believer has the right to separate himself from. Otherwise, it is part of the false church in the service of Babylon, from which all true believers must flee, lest they be partakers in her sins.

But this guy has chosen to reject not only pastors (necessary for the Great Commission of teaching all things that Christ has commanded us - the whole counsel of God), local church institutes (including the government of elders necessary for the proper administration of discipline and the sacraments, apart from which there is ordinarily no salvation – and by this I especially include the continuous sanctification which must take place in every believer’s life primarily by means of attending the preaching of the Word), and denominations (necessary for churches properly working together, serving one another's needs, and for true biblical unity in doctrine and practice). So my testimony is that he is schismatic. This is plainly, grieving the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of love, and of truth, and therefore also, of unity. Saints are to be greatly and heavily and deeply concerned, with endeavouring to KEEP (not make) the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4), because there is ONE body (not two or more as the Judaizing dispensationalists teach), and one Spirit, one hope of our calling (not two, and that means the biblical amillenial hope, not the Jewish dreams of the premills or carnal fancies of the postmills), one Lord, etc. Read Ephesians 4!

One faith (not train-tracks, not "truth in tension", not compromising with prideful and damning Arminianism), one baptism (not post-confessional anabaptism or regenerational baptism - the true spiritual baptism into Christ), one God and Father of all. And how is this incredible measure of unity maintained? By the PRIMARY spiritual gift of the ascended Christ - mentioned at the start, pastors and teachers (v.7ff). Have a listen to this sermon if you have time: http://www.cprc.co.uk/keepingunityofspirit.mp3 and there is a great series about pastors on the cprf audio section too. Just how important is unity in the church and between churches? To oppose unity in the church and amongst churches for unscriptural reasons is dividing Christ asunder, and calling Him a polygamist (Eph. 5:22-33), or worse. It is to deny monotheism, and teach polytheism instead. It is to attempt to split apart the one body of Christ and cut others or oneself off from Him – and only those joined to Christ’s body under Him as the Head can be in fellowship with Him and saved from hell – to be cut off is to be eternally accursed – this is the terrifying reality of excommunication when carried out biblically and if the subject does not repent (John 20:23 etc). In all this the inward reality ought to be manifest outwardly too.

It is not without great weight then, that the Scripture says: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment. … Is Christ divided?” (I Cor. 1:10ff) All divisions result from the carnal seed, those wretched and damned false sheep within the church, and our own still-remaining sinful flesh which we must daily crucify. But this is not to say that all such divisions are wrong or unnecessary! Christ’s earnest desire is for such divisions to be manifest (Luke 12:49-53), between the seed of the serpent and His seed, but not between His own seed, who are joined by His Spirit! Here we have the entire reality of what the previous division between Jew and Gentile was supposed to represent – and why, the reality having come in Christ, that all such divisions made by the dispensationalists are wicked Judaizing and any division based on race or social status is wrong. To manifest the true unity of the Spirit, we must humble ourselves and tear down the errors of doctrine and immorality in practice which our lustful flesh is so prone to – and the central means as always is the preaching of the Word by lawfully called, qualified, ordained and sent ministers, which this man has so carelessly thought to reject.

I hope all this helps. On the subject of denominations I recommend this short booklet:
http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov97.html#BiblicalChurchUnity
More info and links on my blog here:
http://wiseguysblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/happy-new-year-from-limerick-it-has.html
And on the CPRC Resources page about the church here:
http://www.cprf.co.uk/churchresources.htm

- Sam W.

Evolution of the Computer Engineer

2009-05-12T14:23:00.004+01:00

Let's look at living things, from the eyes of a computer engineer. Three components are necessary:

Hardware
Software
Intelligence and ability to learn

Then we have to consider that so far, software has not been able to create any intelligence or ability to learn analogous to a human. Immediately the analogy fails, for computers can never be people, no matter how many Asimov stories we read. Next the software must be able to somehow influence the hardware. Much like a robot programmed to repair itself, and construct and programme new robots just like it. So the software must be able to cause the hardware to produce a manufacturing facility, and to produce the software to programme that facility. This facility must be able to produce the hardware and software which the first had, such that it too will be able to reproduce.

Now then, how did this hardware and software come about initially? Well, a computer engineer must have made it. It couldn't arise by itself. Neither the hardware, nor software could arise spontaneously. No amount of randomness and time can overcome a logical and mathematical impossibility - one will never be equal to two. If this is the case with something so simple as a computer or robot, then how much more is it impossible for the far more complex human?

What could provide the information, the software and hardware to produce the manufacturing facility and operate it to produce hardware and software with the same ability? Computer engineers ought to know that goo-to-you-via-the-zoo evolution is absurd. Chemists also ought to know this, physicists ought to, and especially biologists. But the atheist can't figure it out. He tries, but his a priori determination to hate the God that he doesn't believe in, keeps him from seeing sense.

Psalm 53
¹The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
²God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. ³Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. ⁴Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God. ⁵There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them. ⁶Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

But even to these, people no worse depraved sinners than myself apart from the grace of God, Christ sends the call of the Gospel:

"O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart."
- Proverbs 8:5

May the simple be wise, may Jacob rejoice, and may Israel be glad, for the glory of Christ!

The Spirit of Bezaleel, son of Uri.

2009-04-30T15:47:00.007+01:00

I've been reading Exodus, and it is has been amazing. I never cease to be amazed at how God continues to reveal His glorious unchanging truths in passages of Scripture that I have read many times before. I just want to point out something really powerful, that I never noticed before.

Reading the ten commandments (Exo. 20:1-17), we see the first commandment (Exo. 20:2-3), which is a precursor to all the others - who do we worship? The LORD, and Him alone! Worship is the centre of the Christian life, without a shadow of a doubt. Ask why was God so merciful to save such wretched and despicable sinners as us? That we might show forth His praises! (I Pet. 2:9) And most especially, the glories of His unending, incomparable grace! No surprise that this is what all the commandments are about.

I like to ask people what makes the second commandment (Exo. 20:4-6) different to the first. Some people seem to have the idea that it also speaking about who we worship - but in fact it is teaching that if we are not worshipping God according to His way - His commandments, then we are worshipping idols. The second commandment is about how we worship! We don't worship God with graven images. What is a graven image? (Deut. 4:15-19, Isa. 40:18-21) It's just something from our own ideas - our own imagination. No surprise that today, the most popular kind of worship is always this imaginative human-invented worship. Well, God tells us that this kind of worship is not what He requires, and that it is worship of idols - not Him. He requires worship in spirit and in truth (John 4:24).

To teach us this, He shows us the example of the Israelites who asked Aaron to make them a graven image (Exo. 32:1-35). He gathered their bits of gold and just formed a molten calf to represent the God who brought them out of Egypt (Exo. 32:2-4; 23-24). Remember that the word "gods" is the same as the word referring to the one true "God", Elohim. They did not think they were worshipping an idol - Aaron told them that by means of the calf they would worship the LORD - the God who brought them out of Egypt (Exo. 32:4-6). But God identifies this practice as despicable idolatry (Exo. 32:7-8)! Why? He cannot be represented by anything in heaven or on earth, and cannot be worshipped in any other way that the way that He has commanded.

All evangelicals ought to know this very well. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Apart from that narrow way of faith in Jesus Christ alone, we have no way to worship God (Rom. 3:20-31). We cannot worship the Father except that we are in the Son by faith. Without His life, death and resurrection for our sins, we would be utterly separated from God - and heading to hell. We could not even pray to God except for faith in what Christ has done for us (Prov. 15:8; 26; 29; 28:9; Isa. 59:1-21; Jas. 1:6-8).

So we see the burning anger of the Lord against this wickedness, and Moses' pleading for them - his pleading rooted in the desire for God's name to be hallowed and the promise of the covenant established and maintained throughout generations (Exo. 32:11-14). And then we see Moses' anger at such wickedness and the terrible judgments brought upon the children of Israel that day (Exo. 32:19-20; 25-28).

A little later on, we see Moses, having been given the detailed instructions about how God is to be worshipped. The first person in the Bible, that we are told that was filled with the Spirit of God, was Bezaleel, son of Uri, who God raised up to follow exactly His instructions about the tabernacle (Exo. 31:2-11; 35:30-35). What follows is one of the most beautiful passages in Scripture (and I used to think it was boring!). In clear and sharp contrast to the wickedness of idolatrous Israel with the molten calf of their prideful imagination, Bezaleel carefully, worshipfully, and lovingly crafts all the articles for the tabernacle according to every detail - just as God had commanded (Exo. 36:1), so that the children of Israel may worship Him as He ought to be worshipped - in the splendour of holiness.

And here we see another glorious picture of Christ who alone builds the altar of the Lord and provides the sacrifice by which we may worship our Lord with clean hands and a pure heart. Not only do we see such glorious pictures in the various articles of the tabernacle and the glorious truths that the tabernacle itself points to - all these things pointing to the Person and work of our Lord and Saviour, but we see the Spirit of the Lord at work in Bezaleel to do all these things, just as God had commanded.

The contrast is mind-blowing. On one side we have the impatience, pride, and presumption of Aaron and the children of Israel who worshipped with a hastily made molten calf. On the other side we have Bezaleel and the others, who painstakingly, carefully, attentively, prepared everything just perfectly so that they could worship exactly as God had commanded. And we taught even more - Bezaleel, was chosen for such a task only because God had filled him with the Holy Spirit.

May God graciously grant us that same Spirit, so that we also, with Bezaleel, may be delivered from wicked idolatry, to worship God in spirit and truth, as He has commanded us and no other way. And may we take great delight in worshipping God in His way in His temple, the body of Jesus Christ, which has been raised from the dead - to proclaim His glory!

--

From all this, I have some sad conclusions too. Popular contemporary worship, in all it's attempts to be new and fresh and relevant, is no different to the idolatrous ritualism of the medieval Roman church - it is Romanism at best. But to use this biblical example we have - it is simply worshipping that golden calf again - and will bring those terrible judgments again. May God cleanse us of such wicked practices and may He open our eyes to see them, may He reveal His commandments to us, so that we may delight in them and glorify His name.

And I see no suggestion anywhere throughout Scripture that we are commanded to sing any songs as praise to God, except the Psalms. We are reminded again and again throughout Scripture to sing the Psalms of David - and that he is the sweet psalmist of Israel, speaking the words given to him by the Holy Spirit, as a picture of Christ (II Sam. 23:1-2).

Again, we ought to be reminded of this truth that runs throughout all this: that the only way to worship God is the way that He has made and given to us. The only tabernacle to worship in, was the one which God Himself had laid down the instructions for, and even more, had Himself crafted by means of His Spirit at work in Bezaleel. The truth of salvation is Christ alone is also taught in this. We cannot worship in any way that we have invented - only the way that Christ has made and Him alone. Faith itself being a gift of God (Eph. 2:8), and Christ even entering this world by the virgin birth - teaching us that man was not involved. We have no part in our salvation (Rom. 9:11-16).

How much then, ought our worship to reflect this? We are nowhere instructed to craft our own songs to worship God with - but we have been given the Psalms and are told to use them, over and over again (Jas. 5:13; Psa. 95:2; 105:2; I Chr. 16:9; Eph. 5:18-20; Col. 3:16). Some people point to the phrase used twice in Scripture: "psalms, hymns, and songs, of the Spirit." (Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16) How can this suggest that we ought to write our own songs? Such would simply be more golden calves.

The word, "of the Spirit" is always used to refer to something coming from the Spirit of God, that can only be Scripture - and especially, it can only be the songs of the sweet psalmist of Israel who spoke by the Spirit. These "psalms, hymns, songs" also are called the "word of Christ" (Col. 3:16) with which we are to "teach and admonish one another" and to be "filled with the Spirit" (Eph. 5:18) - and in the Psalms, David speaks the word of Christ, filled with the Spirit. This can only be the Psalms of David. And "psalms, hymns, songs" are three Greek words, which are the three different titles used in the headings of the Psalms in the Greek version of the Old Testament, and triplets used to describe the same thing are used elsewhere in Scripture too. There is no suggestion anywhere that they could refer to anything other than the Psalms.

Finally, what would the Ephesians and Colossians assume that Paul meant when he wrote to them? The Bible is persipicuous, clear and lucid to believers - Paul wrote to be understood, as he would prefer to speak five intelligible words than ten thousand in an unknown language (I Cor. 14:19). There is no question as to what Paul was referring to - the Psalms. And so we ought to sing the Psalms only, and any who claim otherwise must have to go to terrible lengths to prove something different. But why even try to go to such lengths? What songs could be better than the biblical Psalms?

And why bring something less than the best to God in worship? The prophet Malachi was sent to rebuke the priests for bringing lame and sick sacrifices to the Lord (Mal. 1:6-14). He will not accept them - He requires the best sacrifices - and so only what Christ has given us in the Psalms should be the sacrifice of praise on our lips (Heb. 13:15). And what other songs come so infallibly from the Spirit of God, with such continual recommendation and exhortation to sing? After all that, we ought to remember that whatever is not of faith is sin (Rom. 14:23). If one has no conclusive proof for singing other songs - then don't risk worshipping with a golden calf.

The Psalms are the songs of Jesus Christ, of whom David was a type, and nothing less than these songs could possibly be worthy as an offering before God. Heb. 13:15 teaches that it is by Him that we must praise God, how else but by the Psalms? May God grant us the spirit of humility and grace to delight in the songs that He has given us, and not seek broken cisterns elsewhere that will only bring judgment on us (Jer. 2:9-13). May God's name be hallowed among His people. May Christ's grace and mercy be known among the nations.

FYP finished! Now exams...

2009-04-20T13:47:00.006+01:00

Probably the next post will be after the exams - the next four weeks are going to be intense. I would love to tell all about our amazing time in Ballymena with the lovely saints of the CPRC, but that will have to wait.

I'd also love to tell about the next lecture in Limerick that is coming up, but that too will have to wait. See details on the Limerick Reformed website. The important thing is that you didn't need to be at part one to get a lot out of part two. Sounds like it will be superb and very encouraging. It's really crazy that the very same issues that were dealt with in the Reformation by men like Calvin (by God's mighty grace), are just as bad, if not worse today. May God help us.

Now, to the subject of this post, I finally finished my FYP last thursday and handed it up on Friday. I took a breather last weekend again, and now I feel ready and rejuvenated to tackle the coming weeks head on - for the glory of my Saviour and my God.

Next few challenges are six essays to prepare and memorise for the exams, and some lecture notes to catch up on. But then, I'm finished college. Weird. I hope that I will seek first the Kingdom of God in all my study and whatever work I have to do.

- Sam W.

Listen to the Bible - not feelings.

2009-04-09T00:48:00.003+01:00

Things have been really tough going recently. I don't really understand why, apart from the general reason - my many sins, especially my lack of faith. At times, I am in awe of the cross, and then I lose sight of it and get stuck in rut staring in horror at my depravity.

Has Christ not set me free? How then can I not give Him the praise He deserves? Can my wickedness be so deep that I fail in some many things to honour Christ above all? I know the answers to these questions - scripturally, logically. I believe the answers, but how often my actions do not match my beliefs! How quick is my heart to run after the things which cannot satisfy and which profane the name of my Saviour!

But I am comforted, when I recall, and when I bring to mind (oh, what glorious miracle!), the words of my Saviour. "Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." I remember that it is impossible to serve God and Mammon, and I am in no doubt as to who Christ serves with all His heart and mind and soul and strength - His Father. And I am in no doubt as to the Father's love for the Son!

What despair I would be in if Christ had not preached to me the Gospel and loosed my from my bonds! How devoid of all hope I would be if Christ was not my Saviour. As it is I struggle to overcome feeling down now and again. If not for Christ, I would have no weapon with which to strike against my constant enemies - the world, the flesh, and the devil. If my own feet were to support me, I'd be groveling in the dust with the serpents. But Christ is my Rock who makes me to stand. How glorious a thing it is, that the ground on which I stand does not depend on myself! The only light I can see is that Christ is the all-sufficient Saviour - He will not leave me nor forsake me.

How I long to see Him more clearly, and yet how often I struggle to even find such a longing in me! Why do I not hate wicked apathy as I ought! But Christ will keep me waiting for His deliverance - His rod and staff will guide me down the narrow path. I have no strength of myself - of that I am certain. It seems that the people in the world have plenty of strength, they struggle and succeed in the world, yet I struggle to struggle, and often don't struggle. Yet how much more motivation I have, than they. They live to please themselves, I live to serve Christ who saved me, and yet their perseverance and dedication puts me to shame. And is my longing to be rid of this old man, also selfishness and pride, rather than love for my Creator? A lucid moment is very precious.

I've not been working on my final year project for college as much as I ought to have been. I should have been finished weeks ago. Now I've had the deadline extended and I wonder will I even meet that target. And I tell myself not to get stressed - and depressed. I remind myself of Romans 8:28. I imagine the possibility of failing utterly and tell myself that it wouldn't be the end of the world. And then I feel like it would be. But what business has a Christian to listen to himself - especially a Reformed Christian. Scripture alone is our authority. We must listen God, and not ourselves, for we are filled with lies - our old man in the image of that father of lies, Satan.

I've been keeping up to date with http://www.creation.com/ and they've really been pumping out some great articles. I wanted to share a great quote (not an endorsement) from Louis Berkof:

"Since the entrance of sin into the world, man can gather true knowledge about God from His general revelation only if he studies it in the light of Scripture"

I ended up sharing a few thoughts that have been running through my head for weeks instead though, which is fine. Funny how it came around to a very similar topic - the authority of Scripture. I also need to remember their sufficiency, that same sufficiency of the Holy One who breathed them. May we rest in Him and give Him glory - for He is worthy.

Is the climate-deniers position credible enough for a convincing April fool's joke?

2009-04-01T23:10:00.004+01:00

See recent April fools joke on RealClimate.org:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/04/farewell-to-our-readers/

Samuel Watterson Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. 1 April 2009 at 5:07 PM

What I find most hilarious about this post is the number of people who were momentarily fooled by it. (I wasn’t, knowing how deeply committed these authors are - at least to their position if not always the data…)

Isn’t the idea of a good April’s fool gag that is it is convincing enough to fool some people? Makes me wonder whether daring with this wasn’t conceding that the “contrarians” might just have some credibility… Perhaps this gag was a bit too far after all.

--

Of course, I believe that term "climate-deniers" is more suited to the legends at RealClimate.org. The fact is that the proxies and methodologies used for historic reconstructions have not been verified by cross-examination with modern records, and the studies resulting from these do not match the historical documentary evidence. The Little Ice Age was very cold, and it was not so cold before it. Are we now warmer than before the Little Ice Age? Do we know? What significance would it have if we were? Documentary evidence indicates that at least the Northern Hemisphere is not as warm as it was.

Is our climate stable or unstable? Is it's instability so bad that a 0.01% change in the atmospheric composition (that roughly represents the increase in CO2 possibly due to human activity) could irreverisibly disrupt it? First we ought to remember who designed it:

"For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else."
- Isaiah 45:18.

And then let us remember the unconditional promise of the Sovereign Lord:

"And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease."
- Genesis 8:21-22.

Of course this doesn't rule out disruption of the climate system by human activity altogether, but it does set boundaries and limits on it. We ought also to remember the terrible woes that are promised as this present evil age draws to its close. As Christians, we look for the city that has foundations, and the new creation - the new heavens and the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness with the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ when He will bring fiery vengeance on those who obeyed not the gospel and loved wickedness, while we who by His grace were called, we dwell with Him. And He will be our God, and we will be His people, and He will wipe every tear from our eyes.

So what is the obsession with trying to prove global climate change caused by human activity - first, a global problem requires a global solution, second, human pride loves that sense of self-importance, that if the climate is awry, we are not only responsible, but can save ourselves too. Wonder at the glory of man! He can save himself from every distress! Not even global climate change will stop his progress! But he is godless, his glory is his shame, and his progress is towards hell.

- Sam W.

The Colours of Redemption

2009-03-10T22:03:00.005Z

All waters receding at last!
The longest year had passed.
A dove brought back the olive leaf,
With the sweet smell of relief!
The covering had been enough
To brave the waves so tough;
Divine design had proved the tub
Which bore them through the rub.

After much waiting for the Word
“Go forth with all”, they heard.
Living creatures, fowl, beasts, creepers,
Emerged with believers.
Two or more of every kind
Not a colour out of mind;
That altar built for offering
Gave thanks unto the King.

Remembrance of a sacrifice
Paid for their sin the price,
Of old and yet to come by death
To cover for their breath;
Confirmation of the promise
Made at their genesis,
Of transcendent friendship restored;
Most undeserved reward.

Of colour the restoration,
And only foundation.
Of colour the full salvation,
And its preservation.
Never would the waters return
Such was divine concern;
Never again would seasons fail,
Although our sins prevail.

And as a sign of this decree
Eternally to be,
“I do set my bow in the cloud,”
The mighty words were vowed.
So today these colours we see
Inseparably free,
In the circle vast, hung in air
Incomparably fair.

The rainbow beams amidst darkness
Despite despair to bless.
When bleakest clouds stretch, spread, and shroud,
Our hearts may still sing loud.
Colours myriad 'round the throne,
Make clear what has been shown
Some purchased, through judgment, by grace
From each tribe, tongue, and race.

Though clouds be vast and numerous
To damn the blasphemous,
Yet a remnant still, of each shade,
Just as vile, given aid.
Every colour distinct in beauty,
Yet all in one with glee.
Each part of eternal glory,
Forever praising Thee.

- Sam W.

TULIP - an acronym for grace alone

2009-02-11T12:33:00.008Z

Salvation by grace alone is summarised well in the acronym "TULIP". Like the flower, this truth is beautiful and glorious too. I would like to briefly explain the basic meaning of TULIP, and how it biblically describes how we are saved.

T is for TOTAL DEPRAVITY: In our natural condition, every single person has a totally corrupt heart, and therefore, all our thoughts, decisions, actions; everything that proceeds from our heart, is totally evil. We cannot please God, nor do anything morally good in His sight. Superficially, we can seem very pious, but its all for the wrong reasons, and so we can do nothing to save ourselves, and are subject to the wrath of God.

U is for UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: Before the foundation of the world, God the Father, eternally, graciously and lovingly chose a limited number of particular individuals to be saved from this terrible wrath that we deserve. The others were appointed to perish eternally in hell in the way of their sins and total depravity as a testimony to the elect of God's glory and power and what we also truly deserve. His choice was not based upon anything in us whatsoever. There were no conditions, or criteria in us (which would then be merit) that God used to choose, because it was before we had done anything good or evil, that we should be to the praise of the glory of God's grace alone.

L is for LIMITED ATONEMENT: This is often misunderstood, it is those who teach salvation by the "free" will of man who limit the atonement. They limit its power to save. The Bible does not limit its power to save despite our sin, but it does limit its extent to the elect. God the eternal Son, Jesus Christ, came to earth as fully human and fully God, and suffered and died and rose again to fully take the wrath of God in the stead of the people God had unconditionally elected, so that their sins were fully paid for (and theirs only). God is just in justifying the elect who were by nature totally depraved because of the cross of Christ. This is central to the Gospel. God is just in condemning the impenitent because Christ did not pay for their sins - the atonement is limited to the elect.

I is for IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: God the Holy Spirit, in time, changes the hearts of these elect people, for whom Christ has died, so that they are granted faith in what Christ has done for them as a gift. The Spirit of Christ raises these dead sinners to life, and reveals the beautiful and glorious Gospel to them by the Word (which God sends by means of preachers), so that they irresistibly believe it, and are consciously justified by faith alone in what Christ has done for them, and are joined to Christ by faith so that His righteousness is imputed to us, and we are partakers of Him and all His benefits - adoption, co-heirs, and the list goes on. This unmerited favour is irresistible because the Almighty Spirit puts a new heart in God's people so that they love Him, where before they only hated Him. Apart from this, there is no grace of God, since every other gift is only a curse to those who will end up in hell.

P is for PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: These unconditionally elected people, who by nature were totally depraved, whose deserved punishment was fully taken by Christ, and who have been brought to faith irresistibly by the Holy Spirit, are all (every single one) perserved by that same Spirit to the very end. The Spirit of holiness works in them to produce an increasing godliness of character and likeness to Christ, and to keep them faithful and repentant to the end, even though they may often have doubts and fall into sins. This is not a licentious doctrine, since the regenerate have died to sin, and can no longer live any longer in it. The elect struggle fiercely in battle with their sinful flesh all their lives until their death or Christ's return, and are then are made perfect in glory to dwell with God forever, to delight in Him and glorify Him.

These are the doctrines of grace alone, and nicknamed the five points of Calvinism. These are not the teachings of man but of Scripture however, even though Calvin faithfully taught them. Since he did, by the grace of God alone, it is appropriate to post this in 2009, the 500th birthday of that Genevan Reformer. May we see such reformation and such preachers in our day too, and may God be glorified in the church now and forevermore.

- Sam W.

P.S. There will be a public lecture on "John Calvin's Battle for the Reformation" in Limerick on Friday the 6th of March at 7:30pm held in the Limerick School Project on O'Connell Avenue. See more details here: http://www.cprf.co.uk/limerick.htm.

Lecture: Music's Indispensible Place in (the) Reformation

2009-01-23T23:50:00.005Z

Prof. Barry Gritters from the Protestant Reformed Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan, recently gave a remarkable lecture in Limerick on the above subject. I haven't written anything extensively reviewing it since I've been quite busy with various other things recently.

A great review can be found here:
http://manuelkuhs.blogspot.com/2009/01/lecture-on-indispensable-place-of-music.html

And the lecture itself can be found here:
http://www.cprc.co.uk/musicinreformation.m3u

There will hopefully a blogpost coming up again shortly.

The particularly pertinent points to me were:

The importance of congregational singing in worship.
The kind of music most appropriate to this.
The role and nature of music as God's creation.

Especially good was the point that our music ought not to be like the music of the world with all its connotations. It ought to be not worldly, and have majesty and gravity.

- Sam W.

Cosmology and Biblical Creation: God stretched out the heavens!

2009-01-05T13:54:00.006Z

I have a book by Dr. John Hartnett called "Starlight, Time, and New Physics" which I had not quite finished reading yet (it was so exciting, I had to lend it to someone else). But I would nevertheless like to quote some info about it from this article: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6184

But this is only the beginning of the exciting implications of this
revolutionary book. Hartnett refers to recent observational data that
overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that the universe must have a centre, with our galaxy somewhere near it. By plugging this ‘galactocentric’ universe into Carmeli’s equations, and then adding the biblical ‘stretching out of the heavens’ by God at creation (big bangers can scarcely disagree, as they call something like that ‘inflation’), what ‘falls out’ is an astonishing by-product. Namely, that there are built-in gravitational time-dilating effects such that:

a) Adam would have seen light from most of the same stars we see today
when he looked up on the sixth day and
b) light from even the most distant quasar, billions of light-years away from Earth, would reach us now within the six or so thousand years since creation.

Note that this is not the product of wishful thinking, or mathematics designed to give that outcome—just a straightforward chain of scientific reasoning:

a) Carmelian cosmology fits the observational data overwhelmingly, data which has been so puzzling that mysterious (and now unnecessary) fudge factors have been invented.
b) Observations also indicate that we are in a galactocentric universe.
c) Combining a) and b) mathematically shows that it is inevitable that an initial rapid ‘stretching out’ completely eliminates the so-called light-travel time problem for biblical creation.

I highly recommend reading the short article for more info on how to appropriately respond to the common attacks on God's Word from this area, even without Hartnett's book, and how to follow 2Co 10:3-5 in tearing down the fallacies of modern "big-bang theory" foolishness. I also highly recommend the book (although I cannot as yet give it a proper review).

- Sam W.