Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Liberalism. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Real reasons why the KJV is superior to modern translations

This was said to a friend and brother of mine recently who was criticising the NIV:

"All translations are corrupt. KJV is messed up, especially in 1 Jn according to proper cannon. Discernment is the key. Don't go throwing away your NIV's. A good expositor can weed this stuff out."

But not everyone in the church knows Greek and Hebrew, that's why we need a trustworthy translation from the right textual sources.

The KJV is not perfect, but it is based on the right manuscript tradition, using biblical methods of textual criticism understanding God's sovereign providence and the preservation of His Word for His church in all ages (rather than what is popular with scholars, i.e. antiquity = best), and it is translated using a biblical translation approach (literal rather than interpretive thought-for-thought, since then we have only a commentary rather than the Bible), and it is in readable, understandable English. It was translated by trustworthy men who were also excellent scholars. It is the mature fruit of the Reformation's Bible translation work. It has served the English-speaking churches for 400 years across denominational boundaries, tried and tested.

It is still the best English translation.

Modern translations cannot hold a candle to it on all these counts. Instead of bringing more consistency or clarity or certainty they cause endless debate and confusion and uncertainty. The great proliferation of modern translation in our modern age is a terrible evil, more stimulated by the love of money than the love of God's truth and His people.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Homosexuality in the Bible


Introduction

At the outset, as a Christian, I do not bother entertaining the objections to any passage of Scripture on this or any other issue. It matters not one iota who was the human writer of any passage of Scripture with regard to its authority. Unbelievers may disregard Scripture, and do so at their eternal peril, but any who profess to be Christian must believe the Holy Scriptures to be God’s Word or their profession is empty, since thereby they deny Jesus Christ who is the One who speaks in the Scriptures. Nor does it matter at all that much of the church world today denies many parts of Scripture, and does not obey God’s Word. In doing so, they only show that they are not truly churches at all. Nor is it my intention to deal with all the perverse interpretations of Scripture which ignorant unbelievers attempt to use to claim that it is absurd or otherwise. Anyone honestly interested in the truth may easily look up the relevant passages of Scripture for himself, and see the perversity of the reasoning of unbelievers such as Richard Dawkins who are literally hell-bent on opposing faith in the living God as He is revealed by the Word.
“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” – Luke 21:33.
It should be said that the issue of homosexuality is an ethical issue. Every single ethical or moral issue is important because of the spiritual truth about God and His work of salvation. It must be said however that the reason ethical issues ought to concern Christians is not because true Christians seek to stroke their egos by keeping difficult rules, nor is it because we are trying to earn some kind of ticket into heaven by keeping certain laws. True Christians ought to be concerned with doing the will of God (that is, obeying His commandments or laws) out of love for Him, in gratitude for our salvation which has already been accomplished by Christ for everyone who believes in Him. And that is how we know that Christ has died and risen again for our sins: we believe on Him, only by a miracle of grace. This is because Christ purchased at the cross the gift of faith for all those and only those given to Him by the Father. If you believe, you will certainly be saved everlastingly. And as a result, you will be very concerned with moral issues, in order to show your gratitude to God and honour Him. So it should be obvious now that to the unbeliever, homosexuality is not an issue that is cared much about, except that the unbeliever would very much like everyone to approve him, especially because in his conscience he still knows that God does not approve him.

Why One Man and One Woman?

What then is the key spiritual truth which determines our view of homosexuality? Some have claimed it is creation, and that would not be entirely wrong, but there is a far deeper truth behind this. Why did God create humans male and female? It was not, as some have claimed, simply to populate the earth. If this was God’s purpose He could have created humans to be hermaphrodites like earthworms and snails (by the way, there is a significant reason that this behaviour is only natural for these kinds of unpleasant slimy creatures). But even a surface reading of Genesis 2 demonstrates that when God revealed that it was not appropriate for man to be alone, He did not create another man to be with him, but deliberately took flesh and bone from the man’s side and formed it into a woman, specifically to be a companion fitting for man. This tells us that men cannot take the place of a woman in relation to a man. Men can be very good close friends, and love one another very much, as much, or even sometimes more than men can love women or vice versa. But this passage proves that there is a definite role which no man can or may attempt to have in relation to another man. This includes sexual activity. And all sexual activity, according to the Bible, is only appropriate within the bond of marriage.
“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” – Genesis 2:18-24.
The fundamental truth that ought to govern our view of homosexuality is the spiritual reality of Christ and the church as presented in Ephesians 5. Not the church building or the institute of the church, but the church itself. The church in this context is the people of God, true Christians redeemed from every tongue, tribe, and nation, gathered throughout all history. This passage teaches us that mystery of marriage is revealed as Christ and the church.
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” – Ephesians 5:22-32.
The passage teaches unmistakeably that marriage is a bond between one man and one woman so that they are one flesh. Marriage is this way precisely because of the spiritual reality of Christ and the church. Christ is united to the church by a holy bond, so that we are of his flesh and of his bones. As in earthly marriage, this heavenly marriage is composed of one husband and one wife. The husband is Jesus Christ who is the head and loves the church and gave Himself for the church on the cross. The wife is the church who is the body and is called to submit to Jesus Christ. This is the spiritual reality that all earthly marriages ought to display a picture of. Therefore there can be no “homosexual marriages”. Anything other than one man and one woman in marriage could not and would not be a picture of Christ and the church. In fact the idea of a “homosexual marriage” is therefore a perversion of this picture.

In the Old Testament there are admittedly various examples of men who married either multiple wives or had additional concubines. However, the Scriptures never ever approve of these situations. In fact, the first polygamy is found in the wicked line of Cain’s descendents. Abraham was very obviously chastised for his taking of Hagar as a concubine, and Jacob’s life was made miserable by his folly in taking a second wife. David and Solomon both brought great trouble on themselves by their wives/concubines. Furthermore, the conclusive word on the issue is the principle taught by our Lord. This instructs us on what Jesus Himself taught about homosexuality in His earthly ministry. It is not true that He never spoke on the issue. That which was in the beginning is the unalterable pattern for marriage: one man and one woman until death.
“… but from the beginning it was not so.” – Matthew 19:8b.

Struggling With Lust

I should think that it ought not to be necessary to also demonstrate that any sexual activity outside marriage (homosexual or otherwise) is sinful. Perhaps this is naïve. At any rate, it ought to be sufficient to say that even sexual lusts hidden in the heart are sinful outside of marriage. As always, Christ does not deny the slightest part of the law but emphasizes even more strongly that the moral law is first of all spiritual. It is not primarily concerned with outward behaviour. True obedience to God’s must always begin in the heart, or else it is nothing but hypocrisy. And if it begins in the heart, then it will necessarily affect the outward behaviour also. This means that not only is homosexual practice sinful but also all homosexual lust is sinful. It should also be understood however that not even the godliest saint can keep the law of God perfectly, he only has a small beginning of true obedience, and that not by his own strength, but only by the power of the Holy Spirit. Therefore a Christian who struggles with lust, whether homosexual or otherwise, ought not despair, but be encouraged that there is a struggle (since those not born again are completely dead in sins), and continue to fight by the power of the Spirit of Christ, in the confident knowledge of their forgiveness, and eventual deliverance and victory.
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” – Matthew 5:27-28.
That there is deliverance from these sins in Jesus Christ is evident from one of the few passages in the New Testament which directly refers to homosexuality. Some of the members of the Corinthian church had been involved in homosexual practices, but by God’s grace they were converted by the power of the Gospel, and repented of their sins, so that Paul could say concerning them, that they had been cleansed of this.
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” – I Corinthians 6:9-11.
This does not mean that they never struggled with this temptation again however. Each person has different trials and temptations. Sometimes our particular weaknesses are due to our birth, others due to events in God’s providence, but we cannot use this as a reason to blame God. God certainly determines all things, and His perfect wisdom is unsearchable. Consider the case of the man who was born blind in John 9. God made him blind from birth – but Christ explained why. It was so that God’s glory would be displayed in him when he received his sight and more importantly salvation through faith in Christ, so that he became a bold witness for Christ and the grace of God before the Pharisees, suffered for Christ, and worshipped Him at His feet.
“And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.” – John 9:1-3.
Nevertheless, we pray in the Lord’s Prayer that God may lead us from temptation. Since we pray that, it would be hypocrisy not to avail ourselves of whatever means God provides for us to avoid temptation. This is a godly, humble thing to do. It is not cowardly or defeatist. It is wise. To refuse means of avoiding temptation is the pride which comes before a fall. For those who struggle to contain their sexual desire, the Bible recommends marriage. Marriage is also a glorious picture of Christ and the church, but God has also given it for this purpose. Some people can live a single life, and that is recommended also as a good choice, especially as doesn’t carry as many earthly cares, but only if continence is not a problem. Seeking marriage means actively, prudently, carefully, wisely seeking a godly spouse who will be a companion for life, trusting that God will provide.
“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency. But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.” – I Cor. 7:2-9.

Sodom: An Example

We have already noted that it is not true that Christ never taught anything about the issue of homosexuality. There is another more obvious reference when Christ speaks about Sodom. Sodom was destroyed with fire and brimstone from heaven because of its proud wickedness, especially characterised by rampant homosexuality from which we have the word “sodomy”. Needless to say, such destruction was unusual. In fact in all history it stands out as one of the most dramatic outpourings of God’s wrath in judgment, next only to the global Flood which destroyed billions of lives. Even the plagues of Egypt were not so severe. It stands out as a fiery testimony for all ages of God’s attitude towards this sin. The example given in Genesis 19 is that of all the men, young and old, gathering to gang-rape Lot’s two male visitors (actually angels). When Lot desperately and disgracefully attempts to protect his guest by offering his daughters instead, they even refuse, and finally attempt to assault Lot before the angels rescue him.

The timing of it is very significant. It occurred long before the Law was given through Moses. Homosexuals today often claim that the Bible’s only teaching on homosexuality is in Leviticus, which they ridicule and disregard on account of many things they do not understand. But Sodom was destroyed before the Law was given through Moses. Irrespective of one’s view of Leviticus then, it is abundantly clear just from the example of Sodom, what God’s opinion of homosexuality is. Sodom is exactly that, an example – for all time. It is referred to repeatedly throughout Scripture as an example, in the Old Testament prophets and also in the New Testament letters.  Once God makes an example like this to reveal something about Himself and His holy judgment, He does not do so again. When God speaks in such a manner, we do not ask Him to repeat Himself, we do not need to.

When the Benjamite city of Gibeah had descended to a similarly wicked state (only worse because this was in the church!), God didn’t send down fire and brimstone. However, there was civil war in Israel as a result, and it marked the darkest occasion since entering the promised land, and the tribe of Benjamin was nearly utterly wiped out because of it. The outrage at Gibeah represented the lowest state of moral bankruptcy in Israel, which illustrates how terribly base and vile a sin homosexuality is.

But Christ pronounces heavier condemnation on Capernaum than Sodom. What was the sin of Capernaum? Christ had preached the Gospel there, but the people had refused to repent and believe. Rejecting the preaching of the Gospel brings greater condemnation than sodomy. It is a much worse sin. That must never be forgotten in all the discussion about the seriousness of the sin of homosexuality. Rejection of Christ in the preaching of the Gospel carries a less tolerable judgment of God.

“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.” – Matthew 11:23-24.

Homosexuality as Judgment

With such a dramatic example we should not be surprised if the rest of the Scriptures take little time to make a point of directly condemning homosexuality. Nevertheless, they do in many cases. Some have been mentioned already. Romans 1 is one such passage. Here Scripture presents homosexuality as a punishment from God for sin, specifically the sin of idolatry. After asserting that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against unrighteous men, it goes on to explain why all are without excuse. This is because all know from what is plainly manifest in them, that God is almighty, divine, and must be worshipped. Since the ungodly in their generations refused to worship God as they knew they should, God gave them over to run after worse sins. It specifies lesbianism, and likewise, sodomy and adds what is probably a reference to the harmful effects of these practices. It also declares that these things are “against nature”. Furthermore, the passage adds that despite their knowledge of the severe judgment of God against these things, they have pleasure in all who practice these things.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. … Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” – Romans 1:26-27.
That in itself speaks volumes about why the Bible does not bother to repeatedly address the subject of homosexuality at length. Not only is it obviously “against nature”, but those who do these things know what God’s judgment is concerning them. In fact their homosexuality is a judgment of God already against them. Remember the Christians in Corinth though; even of these, some are saved.


Homosexuality in the Law


Finally it is necessary to insist that the Bible’s teaching concerning homosexuality in Leviticus cannot and must not be ignored. Of the Old Testament Scriptures, Christ said, “Scripture cannot be broken”, and “If they hear not Moses and the Prophets, neither will they listen though one should rise from the dead”. The reason it is ridiculed by unbelievers is because they don’t know the first thing about the Bible, and how it is to be interpreted. The first rule of Bible interpretation is always that Scripture alone must interpret Scripture, and probably second is that the New Testament Scriptures interpret the Old Testament. The New Testament therefore teaches us how to understand Leviticus correctly and therefore what to make of its teaching concerning homosexuality.
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” – Matthew 5:17-19.
Christ is very clear in this passage that we ought not teach anyone to disregard even one of the least of the commandments of the Old Testament. How are we to understand this? Does this mean that we all have to go and live in Canaan, and rebuild an earthly temple to offer sacrifices? Simply, no. Christ teaches us that the law is spiritual (Romans 7:12, 14a). The Old Testament laws may be divided into three categories. One category concerns the ceremonial laws about the priesthood, the temple, the sacrifices and so on. These things were only ever pictures of what was to come. Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial laws by His perfect sacrifice once for all time for us. He is our High Priest and we now need no other ever. The letter to the Hebrews explains all this very well.

Another category is judicial or civil laws. These were laws particular to the Jewish nation and the land in an earthly kingdom including all manner of punishments such as the death penalty. Likewise, these things were pictures of a greater reality to come. Christ is our King, and His kingdom is spiritual in the hearts of His people. The land was only ever a picture of heaven. Furthermore everything that pertained only to the Jews has been discarded because both Jew and Gentile are saved in Christ. This means for example, no more circumcision or food laws (Peter was even explicitly given a vision to demonstrate this). What then of the moral law? Everywhere it is reinforced in the New Testament as the rule of gratitude. As Christ said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
“Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.” – Romans 13:8-10.
That Paul reiterates these commandments demonstrates that Christians remain bound by the law which is summarised as love for God and for our neighbour. We are not under the law, in the sense of its condemnation. In that sense we are free from it by grace, since Christ has fulfilled the law perfectly for us. But out of love and gratitude for God whose perfect moral character and holy righteousness does not change, we must obey His commandments. What of the command in Leviticus concerning homosexuality then?
“Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her. And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord. Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is confusion. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.” – Leviticus 18:20-25.
A clearer context could not be found. Here we find the commandment couched in between commandments against adultery, infanticide, and bestiality. Who will claim that these things are now justifiable? Furthermore, and this is the end of controversy, it was for these things that God cast out the ungodly nations that inhabited Canaan. These were not Jews, nor had they received the law – they were not bound by any peculiar Jewish customs, yet God destroyed them for these things. Even more, He says that on account of these things, not only the people, but the very land was defiled, vomiting out these wicked inhabitants. This is the sense in which it describes homosexuality as an “abomination”, a detestable thing in the eyes of God. May God deliver us from this defilement. May He cleanse all His elect from it, gather us together, and present us holy and chaste to Christ.

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Recognising a true church requires objective criteria!

A friend recently brought this article to my attention: http://www.insight.org/library/articles/church/how-to-recognize-a-healthy.html?t=Church

What follows is my rather blunt response.

Recognising a true church requires objective criteria!

The translation of Acts 2:43 is very wrong! It's says, "And fear came upon every soul:" That's the reverent loving fear of God which is a mark of every Christian, and the beginning of wisdom. It is seen not in emotional experiences but in obedience to His commandments, as Christ said, if you love me, obey my commandments. In this verse in Acts, Luke is not talking about a sense of awe in their worship services - he's talking about the godly obedience in the hearts of these early Christians.

The first point only begs the question: what is it that glorifies God? To this question, every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a different answer. The only way to judge this is by asking, is this church faithful to SCRIPTURE.

The instruction here is imbalanced because it immediately speaks of the important of good application without insisting upon what must come first - correct sound biblical doctrine. The biblical presentation is different - right knowledge of God always manifests itself in right practice in the lives of believers (otherwise they are hypocrites!). Paul's prayer for the Ephesians begins with this petition for them - heavenly wisdom, knowledge and understanding of God. II Peter sums up the Christian life, "grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ". John 17:3 says, eternal life is this, to know God in Jesus Christ whom He has sent. The Bible is the revelation of Jesus Christ, so that knowledge of the Scriptures is the only source of knowledge of God.

Unbelievers also show seemingly genuine concern for one another, as the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. They may be very warm and naturally affectionate towards one another, united in their rebellion against God. Again, Scripture must be the judge, objectively. We cannot tell what love is in people's hearts except in the expression of it, which we may not be able to distinguish from the "love" of hypocrites!

Furthermore, we must not confuse the healthiness of believers with the healthiness of the church. Obviously the two are related, but remember that there are always hypocrites in the church, and the saints are filled with all manner of weaknesses too, even though there may be nothing wrong with the church. We must not blame the church for all of our own failings and weaknesses. Often there is some blame there, but not at all always!

Historically this subject was dealt with, especially when the church was coming out of apostate Rome. Then it became necessary to establish more clearly how the Bible teaches us to objectively judge what is a church and what is not, because it is not enough for an institution to take to itself the name "church". The Mormon "church" does this (as does Rome) but judged by the Bible, they are not churches at all! So, how do we judge, and how did Christians historically learn to judge this? Again, look at their confessions, where they tell us how the judge, and bear witness of the wisdom that the Spirit worked in their hearts. Guido de Bres, who was martyred for his faith wrote a confession for the Belgian Reformed churches while in prison, which was recognised as so biblical, indisputable, and helpful, in time of great controversy, that the continental European Reformed churches universally approved of it, and began to use it as their official confession. In it, Guido explains what the Bible displays as the three marks by which a church can be recognised. The healthiness of the church is directly related to the church's faithfulness to these.

First, is the pure preaching of the biblical Gospel. That stands to reason for anyone who knows the Bible even a little. It cannot be a church which doesn't preach the true Gospel. The biblical Gospel is simply the good news about Jesus Christ, what He has done to save us. It is not, therefore, instruction about how we may save ourselves by our own will or work, or how to make the world a better place to go to hell from, or how to be successful in life, or any number of other popular false gospels!

Second, is the sacraments that Jesus Christ instituted for His church. A group which doesn't have these two sacraments of the Lord's Supper and baptism, can clearly not be called a church. It is not a church which replaces the sacraments with corruptions that have no bearing to what Christ instituted, such as the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass, or which add to these sacraments many more which Christ never authorised!

Thirdly, is biblical Christian discipline. Christ instituted this too in His church, and gave authority to the church to carry out this discipline with the keys of the kingdom. Naturally, this implies that a church has ruling officebearers (elders who meet the biblical requirements) who can carry out this discipline, according to the biblical mandate and readmit repentant brethren (which also implies official church membership!). This implies also that the elders have the rule over the administration of the sacraments, to refuse those who are impenitent and unbelieving. That which does not have this rule, and corrupts the sacraments by allowing all and any to take part asking no questions cannot be considered a manifestation of the kingdom of God - the church.

Finally, in these, the long-confessed attributes of the church are maintained. Unity, so that we have the same Lord, and believe the same Gospel and so on; catholicity, so that none are excluded or discriminated against on the basis of anything other than impenitence in life or doctrine; holiness maintained by Christian discipline; and apostolicity, doctrinal faithfulness to the teaching of the apostles.

I don't get why this article ignores these long-established doctrines concerning the church.

Monday, April 25, 2011

Acceptable Worship in Christ Alone

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.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Still the best after 400 years

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

Saturday, April 17, 2010

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

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.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Lecture: The Reformation's teaching on the church

In the middle of this grand and outwardly glorious church building in France is Napolean's tomb. This is like the church today, beautifully white-washed on the outside, but at heart just a tomb for idolatrous images and the burnt ashes of the corpse of godless man, all built for the worship of Man.

Friday night's lecture was fantastic. Fewer of our (college) friends could come because of the pressures with exams etc, but we were nevertheless, greatly blessed. We had a friend who came down from Galway (and stayed for the whole weekend!) and we had another friend who has been coming to the Lord's Day meetings over for dinner beforehand who was delighted to learn the Reformed and biblical interpretation of 1 John 2:2.

We arrived early, and I was smitten from about 6 o'clock onwards with a splitting headache which endured throughout the entire lecture. But it was a great joy to meet the saints again (and to get loads of books that I had bought!). When the lecture began (which apparently was longer than usual), it seemed to me, that it was finished almost immediately.

I was quite gripped throughout the entire lecture, despite the headache, of which I recalled only afterwards and had to take paracetamol. The lecture covered all kinds of issues regarding the church, many of which are again very relevant today. For example, it would probably be abhorrent to some to consider the church to be the company of the predestinate (in fact to mention the words "the predestinate" is anathema to many). And for a while a few years ago, like many in the house-church movement I had also fallen into the grave error of presuming there to be no need for the church institute.

It was very helpful to hear not only the right view proven, but also all the myriad wrong views of papists, (Ana)baptists and fanatics disproven. What struck me was how comprehensive the lecture was. It seemed like every angle was covered; what the wrong views were (and why!) and what the right view is (and why!). There were (and are) so many controversies about the nature of the church etc, but the truth is so powerful. As always I am fascinated by what I learn about the Reformation and utterly astonished by how far the church has departed, and how gracious God has been to me to bring me to a true church.

Afterward there was some interesting questions and answers on the topic of children in the church. First, the Three Forms of Unity are very good on this subject, and also the CPRC kindly distribute many pamphlets to biblically prove the correct view on this, but I've also been reading Prof. Engelsma's "The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers". I was especially impressed by his treatment of Article 17 of Head 1 of the Canons of Dordt in the chapter "No Reason to Doubt", and I highly recommend it!

Almost all the "evan-jelly" church in Limerick while not necessarily baptist by name is (ana)baptist by nature; this false indoctrination and total ignorance of the covenant of God (and its nature) is why it is a big hurdle for people here to get around. I still marvel at how clearly I see the doctrine of covenant children in the Bible now, when once I thought it was a totally foreign concept.

The "evan-jellies" do a good job of inoculating us to the plain truth of the Bible until it is pointed out. This is what shallow preaching does: it causes confusion and ignorance and obscures the truth. I think this is why the foolishness of preaching does more than reading alone ever could. It's like God uses preachers who labour in their studies of God's word to point to the elephant in the room that you were too busy examining the toenail of to see that it was an elephant. How long did it take Luther in his reading to see that “the righteousness of God” is referring to His righteousness which can only be imputed to us by Christ, not a righteous standard that we must attain to of ourselves? But if it had been preached to him, the pieces of the jigsaw would have clicked together in very little time.

It is amazing to hear of all the many issues that were dealt with at the time of the reformation, and yet how ignorant most of us are of them. It is so sad, when there is such a precious wealth of biblical truth to be learnt from when these issues came up in the past, that the churches today seem to be like the proverbial fool returning to their folly (of the papists), like a dog to its vomit (Prv 26:11). If your father built most of a house already before he passed away, would you simply demolish it and start building your own from scratch? That's not only foolish, its obstinate and prideful - all of which I too am abundantly guilty.

In Limerick it seems like most church leaders are utterly blind to this. The lecture was like a bombshell going off making clear just how far the false churches have departed from the truth. God-willing others who received copies on CD of the lecture will see that they need to join a biblical church. I am always greatly encouraged when there is a public lecture, because I know that Christ is the one who builds His church (Matthew 16:18) and that it is by the work of ministers of the Word, especially in the preaching, that we are brought into unity, not to be blown about by every wind of doctrine (Eph 4:11-16).

There are certainly many winds of doctrines blowing around here in Limerick, but how can the lies stand against the word of God which is like a fire and a hammer that breaketh the rock into pieces (Jer 23:28-29)? Knowing this, I am courageous to pray and bold to approach the throne of our sovereign and gracious God who does as He pleases among the inhabitants of the earth, for the sake of the Reformed faith in this city, and that He would gather the saints here together so that we would obey 1Co 1:10.

We had some great chats afterwards as well. It was an absolute delight to hear the Reformed minister wholly confute all kinds of silly questions about the "age of reason" and other unbiblical notions, and defend the plain meaning of various passages of Revelation against the divers imaginations about communists, China, Russia, Gog and Magog and years etc. I told my friends about a book "Behold He Cometh!" by Herman Hoeksema (which can be read on-line) that I've been reading through, and how thoroughly sensible and biblical is the interpretation of Revelation it presents without wandering off into any foolish speculations and unscriptural ideas. The only right interpretation is what plainly comes by Sola Scriptura: “Scripture interprets Scripture!”

I think it was about hour after we said that we were going that we actually went, and even then we all spent some time thanking Rev. Stewart for coming down and talking about plans for possibly visiting the CPRC again in January. Exciting stuff! I could probably say a lot more, but I must get more study done - and lots of it.

- Sam W.

Sunday, June 08, 2008

Why should we defend the historical truth of the Bible?

I've been realising that many of the most devious attacks against the Gospel come from attacking an issue which seems at first to be secondary. But the Gospel is built upon the real space-time historical events recorded in the Bible; so undermining the historical accuracy and clarity of the Bible is then quite simply an undercover attack on the Gospel itself.

In particular the early chapters of Genesis which lay down the real historical events that give the foundation for all the major Christian doctrines, such as the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of sin, the consequences of sin, the origin of death, the need for a saviour and more. Once the foundation of these doctrines is removed, the fundamentals doctrines that lay the foundation of the Gospel are removed.

But there is a lot of encouragement to be found, as many have not laid bare their foundations:

See: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5774/

R. C. Sproul says: "According to the Reformation hermeneutic, the first option is to follow the plain sense of the text. One must do a great deal of hermeneutical gymnastics to escape the plain meaning of Genesis 1–2."

The more that this age progresses with all its apostasy and lies and deceptions and even false signs and wonders, the more we will need to cling to the Bible and let go of everything else which claims to have any authority on truth.

It is vital that we fervently believe that Scripture itself is the only authority by which to interpret Scripture.

Otherwise we will be caught headlong in the snare of Satan’s lies, the evil of compromise, the malady of the world’s wisdom and the degeneration of doctrine, the death of certainty, the ignorance of the truth, and the defilement of the church.

Yet we have the precious promises of Christ; His Church will endure, His bride will know the truth and the truth will set her free.

Sunday, May 11, 2008

Hell-deserving sinners are saved for God's glory

Last night I was struck again the truth of this message. I read through the transcript of a sermon by Paris Reidhead on Judges 17 called "Ten shekels and a shirt". He delivered it in 1980, nearly thirty years ago, but it is one of the most prophetic sermons that I have ever heard. It is possibly more relevant now than it was then.

Humanism is such a disgusting sickness in our churches today. I think most evangelists are motivated by a concern for poor humans ending up in hell. But isn't it our just and glorious and holy and righteous and loving God who will put them there?

In our flesh we are monsters of iniquity. We deserve hell, we deserve the eternal torment of an omnipotent angry and righteous God. A concern for horrible sinners ending up in hell? Isn't that totally against God's character? If God didn't want anyone to go to hell, He would certainly make sure that everyone was saved. But this is not what the Bible tells us. The Bible tells us that God did not spare the angels when they fell, but threw them into hell.

Our evangelism should certainly be motivated by a concern, but it is not a concern for the happiness of hell-deserving sinners, it is a concern for the glory of God. It is a desire that God would be glorified through hell-deserving sinners hearing the Gospel and being regenerated and humbling themselves and coming to the cross and dying to self and living for God, by the blood of Jesus Christ.

It is a desire for God to be glorified through the salvation of sinners for the praise of the glory of His grace. As the Lord revealed to Paris Reidhead, "It wasn't for their sake that I sent you to Africa! It was for my sake! I paid the price to redeem them and my people belong to Me! I poured out my blood for them! Do I not deserve the reward of my suffering?"

"I, I am he
who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,
and I will not remember your sins." - Isaiah 43:25

And even clearer in Ezekiel 36.

22"Therefore say to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations to which you came.
23
And I will vindicate the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am the LORD, declares the Lord GOD, when through you I vindicate my holiness before their eyes.
24 I will take you from the nations and gather you from all the countries and bring you into your own land.
25 I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.
26
And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.
28
You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.
29
And I will deliver you from all your uncleannesses. And I will summon the grain and make it abundant and lay no famine upon you.
30
I will make the fruit of the tree and the increase of the field abundant, that you may never again suffer the disgrace of famine among the nations.
31
Then you will remember your evil ways, and your deeds that were not good, and you will loathe yourselves for your iniquities and your abominations.
32
It is not for your sake that I will act, declares the Lord GOD; let that be known to you. Be ashamed and confounded for your ways, O house of Israel.

It is so clear that evangelism is for the sake of the glory of God. For His name's sake. May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering. Humanism says that it is for the happiness of man. That same man who is an enemy of God, whose depravity and rebellion is so offensive in the eyes of the Lord that he deserves eternal condemnation, damnation and torment. The only reason for God to save such a person is for the praise of the glory of His grace.

May we have the same motivation and have done with humanism and utilitarianism which makes God a means instead of an end. As Paris Reidhead said, let's tell Micah we're through, let's tell the tribe of Dan that we won't go along with them anymore. Let's serve the living God instead of serving Micah and the tribe of Dan for ten shekels and shirt.

May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!

"Ten shekels and a shirt" by Paris Reidhead. You might be able to find it on sermonaudio.com as well, and I highly recommend listening to it. Sadly these heresies of humanism and utilitarianism are rampant throughout the church, but may we stand for the truth.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

J. I. Packer stands for the Gospel

The Lord builds His church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I recently read a biography of J. I. Packer, along with a biography of Martyn Lloyd Jones and I saw all the terrible things that J. I. Packer put up with within the Anglican denomination. I finished reading about him and I was longing for him to follow the Bible's clear command not to associate with those teach a different doctrine and those who preach a different Gospel and those who are unbelievers.

Come out from them! Purify yourselves and be separate, you who bear the vessels of the Lord!

And then I read this story recently of how the Lord has finally brought J. I. Packer out of the midst of those who are compromising and perverting the glorious Gospel of our Lord. Read it and be glad, the Lord does not forsake His servants.

---

Famed Theologian Quits Anglican Church of Canada


J.I. Packer, one of the world's most renowned evangelical theologians, left the Anglican Church of Canada, citing 'poisonous liberalism' in the church body.

Mon, Apr. 28, 2008 Posted: 11:38:02 AM EST

J.I. Packer, one of the world's most renowned evangelical theologians, left the Anglican Church of Canada, citing "poisonous liberalism" in the church body.

Packer, 81, who was named one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in the world by Time magazine in 2005, quit the Canadian arm of the global Anglican Communion with 10 other B.C. Anglican clergy last week, he said, according to The Vancouver Sun. They joined the more conservative and orthodox Province of the Southern Cone in South America.

The Oxford-trained theologian said he can no longer serve under Vancouver-area Bishop Michael Ingham, arguing that he "appears heretical." Ingham had sanctioned in 2002 same-sex blessings in the British Columbia diocese of New Westminster, sparking international uproar.

In recent years, 28 parishes have voted to split from the Anglican Church of Canada, citing the denomination's departure from Christian orthodox values and Anglican tradition. They have realigned with overseas Anglican provinces.

St. John's Shaughnessy Anglican Church in Vancouver, which Packer is a long-time member of, left the denomination in February, placing itself under the authority of the Southern Cone province.

John Stackhouse, a professor of theology and culture at Regent College in Vancouver, sees two different bodes forming in Canada with the continual departure of parishes.

"Frankly, we have not seen this sort of thing in Canadian history, and I'm not sure we've seen it in Anglican history," he said, according to The Canadian Press.

"With the significant size of these dissenting groups, and the international support for them ... we may see two different bodies in one geographical territory," he said, noting that Anglican churches traditionally have been determined through geographic, and not ideological, boundaries.

While the controversy has focused on homosexuality, Stackhouse says the issue is about more than sex.

"This is about the fundamental question of how we derive any kind of Christian truth," he said, according to The Canadian Press.

Packer, who has outlined a conservative Christian theology in his 1973 bestseller Knowing God, described the Bible as "absolute" authority on divine truth and that it clearly describes homosexuality as a grave sin, as reported by The Vancouver Sun.

The Rev. Kevin Dixon, priest at St. Mary's Anglican Church in Kerrisdale, meanwhile believes Packer is adopting a "literalistic" reading of the Bible.

"It's important for people to understand that the holy scriptures is a very nuanced document. I think we need to allow people room to come to a new understanding," said Dixon, the local newspaper reported.

"I have not always held the view that same-sex relationships are consistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ, but now I do."

Packer argued that top leaders of the Anglican Church of Canada have changed their interpretation of Christianity while he and other conservative Anglicans have remained committed to traditional Anglicanism.

"I'm simply being an old-fashioned mainstream Anglican," Packer said.

As conservative Anglicans believe the core beliefs of Christianity are being called into question by the Anglican Church of Canada, the small group of parishes that have left may just the first wave, some predict.

"Every diocese in which this (approval of same-sex blessings) has happened – or something like it has happened – churches have split off," said Stackhouse. "This [issue] is very much in play now; this is not the end game at all."

Over the weekend the Anglican Network in Canada, a splinter group comprised of parishes now under the authority of the Province of the Southern Cone in South America, held a conference where they welcomed Archbishop Gregory Venables, leader of that southern province. His arrival at the conference stirred controversy as the Anglican Church of Canada told him not to intervene in the country's affairs. He refused, however, saying the conservative group of Anglicans wanted him there.

Lillian Kwon
Christian Post Reporter

---

I am glad that Packer made it clear that the "same-sex issue" is not the main issue here. The main issue is where that comes from and how that could ever possibly be allowed with the bride of Christ. Christ will not allow it because is washing His bride clean and will cleanse her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendour, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:26-27)

Notice that the washing is by the word. And this is possibly one of the biggest attacks on the church. Many Evangelical denomations now firmly take a stand on the inerrancy of the Scripture, and without that, liberalism and poison and apostasy and idolatry can certainly take root. But even further, what is necessary now is holding firmly to the sufficiency of the Scripture. Without this, it matters little whether a church holds to the inerrancy of Scripture.

Further, without this stand for the sufficiency of a grammatical-historical interpretation of the Scripture, whereby it is sufficient in itself to interpret itself, everyone when confronted with the word of God will simply cry "Interpretation!" instead of trembling at His word. God only looks to those who tremble at His word (Isaiah 66:2).

The clearest illustration of the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture is in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Here the sufficiency of the word of God is repeated in various comprehensive words to remove any doubt from the humble and to remove any excuse from the proud.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

And the clearest passage I can think of that teaches the importance of the recognising the sufficiency of Scripture in interpreting itself is the temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4, Mark 1, Luke 4). Satan twisted the Scripture to tempt Jesus, but Jesus resisted the temptation with Scripture. Peter says that there are those who interpret scripture wrongly, but he also explains why they do. It is a result of not humbly trembling at the word of God, and not accepting that Scripture interprets Scripture.

There are some things in them [the letters of Paul] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do in the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (2 Peter 3:16-18).

Don't fall into their error. Tremble at God's word. Trust in the inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scripture, and trust that it is sufficient to interpret itself, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells within you. The word of God is the sword of the Spirit, it is living and active, sharper than any double edged sword. Our sanctification and cleansing is by the word of God. How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, is laid for your faith in His excellent word. Hold it fast.

Scripture interprets Scripture. Praise God that J. I. Packer is holding firm to the word. Liberalism is a poison, a bitter root, which defiles those around it. Be wary then to make sure that root of bitterness does not grow up among you (Hebrews 12:15).

May God be glorified in His church. Amen.