Definition of ‘Anti-Christ’

 

Mao at Stalin’s side on a ceremony arranged for Stalin’s 70th birthday in Moscow in December 1949.

In the last post I used the term ‘Anti-Christ’ and thought rather than just leave its interpretation a matter for speculation it seemed like a good idea to very briefly supply a definition.

This is probably one of those doctrines that continues to generate large amounts of heat. So if you are looking for someone to debate your take on the issue you will be disappointed. Leave a comment by all means but don’t expect a reply as I’m not getting into a never-ending debate about dates and signs of the end.

So for those that are sitting on the edge of your seats – here it is:

My simple understanding is that when the machinery of the State is used to persecute Christians – there you have the Anti-Christ. We don’t see it as the early Church did with the Emperor Nero, or Stalin, or Chairman Mao: but we do see the beginnings of it albeit in many cases more subtly expressed but in a sense no less powerful. Remember the purpose is to destroy the Church, and if the Church can be made to look ridiculous, or bigoted, unloving, or just fundamentalist nut-jobs it’s perhaps even more successful.

So it’s in the above sense that I use the term Anti-Christ and see no reason for the term not to be used of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, their cronies and of this Parliament.

To counter the spirit of Ant-Christ however, we have the word of the Lord Jesus where He said ‘I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:18). Perhaps our Government will have a short-lived success but in the end it will be the Lord Jesus that will prevail – Praise God!

 

Read Full Post »

Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 2

Continued from Part 1. I begin with the final quote from Stephen’s lecture manuscript.

And so, late in 1660 “Foreseeing clouds to gather blackness over these nations and the Lord in the way of his Providence to threaten his churches and interest with a flood of trouble and persecution, both Mr Ashwood with the rest, endeavoured to incorporate themselves into one body before the storm did fall”.

English: Nick Clegg and other MPs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The point I would wish to make – and did discuss with Stephen after the lecture – is the fact we are seeing a very similar set of circumstances evolve before our eyes.

We have been told by the Prime Minister that Churches need not fear. But, we should not forget that David Cameron is first and foremost a politician and an opponent of the Gospel of Christ. He has no interest in Evangelical Doctrine except where it will further his interests. And, let’s also remind ourselves that just like Charles II Cameron will have ‘to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his’ Election as PM. This of course includes the Liberal Democrats led by the ungodly opposer of all that is sacred, Nick Clegg.

And so we find the following story:

A local councillor for the Green Party in Brighton is facing disciplinary action for refusing to vote in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ in a local council meeting last week.

Christina Summers, a committed Christian, has been the target of abusive emails since making her view known, some suggesting she is mentally ill or describing her as a fascist.

She has made it clear she is “accountable to God above any political party” but Green Party members are looking for her to be expelled.

Go HERE for full story and media links. So much for Freedom of Speech there then!

And just the other day David Cameron not unexpectedly has said about Homosexuality, that ‘CAMERON ACCUSES THE CHURCH OF ‘LOCKING OUT’ GAYS, AND SAYS HE’S FOLLOWING BLAIR’S LEAD‘. I’d like to point out that the true Church does not lock out gays and never has. In fact we want them to come in and call upon God in faith and repentance just like any other sinner.

And again from Cameron – with encouragement from Nick Clegg no doubt – this story:  David Cameron “absolutely determined” to introduce ‘gay marriage’ by 2015. Go HERE for full story and media links. Here’s the fist two paragraphs:

David Cameron announced last night that he is determined to legislate for ‘same-sex marriage’ by 2015 and directly attacked the mainstream churches’ position on the issue.

Meanwhile, in a separate development, the Scottish Government this morning (25 JULY) announced that it intends to bring forward a bill introducing same-sex marriage in spite of strong opposition to the plans expressed in a recent consultation on the issue.

As Evangelical Christians we should prepare ourselves for the coming storm. It’s a time to Trust God as the dark clouds gather and ungodly policies are forced through the legal system. They have no justification for these ungodly policies other than that – they are ungodly and anti-Christ. They are the anti-Christ. If they were seekers after truth they wold not be able propagate their anti-Biblical, anti-Christ policies since without the Christian God there is no truth at all!

The conclusion of the above is – and we shouldn’t be surprised at this – the Government cannot be trusted just as it was back in 1660!

The days are upon us when Freedom of Speech is tottering over the Abyss. Why God has brought this upon I cannot say – but now is the time to ‘quit you like men’ and trust in God.

The government will do what the government will do, but will I have the freedom to disagree and call their policies ungodly. That’s the question. So far though, I do have the freedom to cast my vote with whichever party I choose – or none, At the moment it will be none, but definitely not one of the three main parties of the Greens.

Read Full Post »

Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 1

Back in March the relevance of one of the History Lectures is just too much to pass over. Here’s a direct lesson for us from the history of our own country. I’m very grateful to Stephen Rees for permission to quote from his lecture manuscript. I’ve edited it very slightly and the emphases in bold italics and brackets are mine, but here are a few quotations from the lecture to set the context:

…. Cromwell didn’t remove the concept of a state church.  What he did was to insist the state church must be as flexible as possible – he wanted there to be room for almost any group of truly evangelical Christians to worship within the state church according to their own convictions.  The way it worked was this.  He appointed a committee of 38 men known as the Triers.  A church – or any group of believers could put forward a man as a candidate to be recognised as the local minister.   And the Triers tried him – they assessed his suitability.  The only qualifications were that the candidate must be evangelical in doctrine and show evidence of a godly life.  It didn’t matter if he were a presbyterian or an independent, or a baptist or a fifth-monarchy man.  He could be appointed as minister of the local parish church – the local Church of England – he could be supported by public taxes, and he could lead the congregation according to his own convictions (My note: ‘his own convictions’ means according to the Bible).  Many Anglican ministers were ejected from their churches by local committees, because of their ungodly lives or non-evangelical doctrine – and evangelical men were installed by the Triers in their places.

(My Note: This system of appointed ‘Triers’ presupposed a disposition not only towards the truth of the Word of God (The Bible) but also to the belief that such a thing as The Truth existed. This is not so today. And nowhere is this seen so clearly than in our National leaders. What’s on show in the State Church and in Politicians is sheer unadulterated relativism.)

And this was the way that Bartholomew Ashwood, at the age of 38 came to Axminster.  Though he was operating within the state church, he had freedom for a little while to lead the church according to thoroughly Puritan, evangelical principles and to conduct worship according to his convictions.

But he knew that that freedom couldn’t last very long.  Why not?  Because in 1658 – since Ashwood had been admitted by the Triers, Cromwell had died.  Now the country was on the point of calling Charles II back from exile.  And Charles came from the line of the Stuarts who had persecuted consistent Puritans in England through two reigns.  Before he was brought back from exile, Charles II promised that he would allow religious freedom – “liberty to tender consciences”.  But men like Ashwood had no confidence at all in that sort of promise.  He was very well aware that freedom might be very short-lived.  Apart from anything else, whatever he promised, Charles would have very little freedom himself.  He (Charles) had to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his return.

Ashwood and his friends were convinced independents, believing that each church should be a company of believers, governed by its members under the Word (The Bible).  Whether they were separatists, I think is unclear.  It may be that if Ashwood had been free to build such an independent church “according to gospel rule and the pure institution of the Lord Jesus” yet remain within the overall structure of the state church, he would have chosen that option.  But in any case he knew that that option was going to cease to exist.

This post is getting a bit long – So I’ll end it here. Link to Part 2.

Read Full Post »