James R. White – New book on the Qur’an

Dr James White has a new book on the Qur’an. Dr White has for some years been researching and studying extensively the religion of Islam. His new book has the title ‘What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an (Paperback)’.

There’s an excellent interview with Dr White on The Reformed Forum. From the Reformed Forum website:

Today we welcome Dr. James R. White to the program to speak about his book What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur’an. In the book, Dr. White presents Islamic beliefs about Christ, salvation, the Trinity, the afterlife, and other important topics. White shows how the sacred text of Islam differs from the teachings of the Bible in order to help Christians engage in open, honest discussions with Muslims.

It’s available in the UK via The Book Depository. This is a book I’ll be ordering very soon!

Download interview via Reformed Forum website link above.

Dr White is the Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries – Christian apologetics.

Read Full Post »

Church History Lectures 2013 Audio

The other two lectures from this year are equally well worth listening to. Details and links below:

Speaker: Richard Brooks. Subject: Octavius Winslow (1808-1878) Download HERE

Speaker: Dafydd Morris. Subject: Christmas Evans – “A Gentleman in Rags” Download HERE

Both excellent lectures

Read Full Post »

Van Til Lecture

We were treated last evening to a lecture on ‘Cornelius Van Til’ given by Geoff Thomas (Aberystwyth) in his own inimitable way. The lecture wasn’t the cerebral exercise many were expecting but was a warm lecture full of personal anecdotes and challenge by a man who knew personally Dr Van Til and Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones (You’ll get the connection when you listen to the lecture).

We were warned about the scientific method and evidentialism that hands authority over to man. It’s not for man to decide, it’s for man to repent and believe the Gospel. Preachers (and a lot were at the lecture) were encouraged to preach warmly to the conscience of man knowing there is a God and to not preach a Gospel of probability (my take) but of certainly.

Geoff said after that he should have mentioned ‘Paul at Athens’ and ‘Why I Believe in God’, two booklets by Van Til that are more accessible and available for free. Geoff wished Van Til had written more in this style.

Again as Geoff said afterwards, ‘there’s just so much to say and it’s a massive subject’. But everyone I spoke to and all the conversations I overheard were positive and appreciative of the lecture. He recommended the biography, Cornelius Van Til: Reformed Apologist and Churchman by John R. Muether and a newly released book of 9 sermons by Lloyd Jones, ‘Setting Our Affections upon Glory’.

The best recommendation of the lecture I heard came from a lady sitting in front of me when she said, ‘now I understand Van Til’.

For Van Til resources follow link to a previous post.

I’ll post links to the audio as soon as it becomes available.

Read Full Post »

Van Til Lecture

Some of us have really been looking forward to this final lecture for 2013. So pray for Geoff that he will be enabled to give true credit and explain an apologetic methodology that is as misunderstood as it is caricatured. If you can make it to the lecture be assured of a warm welcome and a cup of tea and a biscuit afterwards. Lecture is at Bulkington Congregational Church. Audio of all three lectures to follow.

April 2013 Church History Lecture

7:30pm Monday 8th April 2013

Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987)
The 20th Century’s Supreme Defender of the Faith

Speaker: Geoff Thomas

Read Full Post »

The Bible – Our Presupposition

Oil painting of a young John Calvin. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The following was partly quoted and referenced from John Calvin – full reference below quote. Note: There is no talk of probabilities here. And neither should we.

From John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion

5. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.73 Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,” (Isa. 43:10).

Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of the Lord,” (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30:12, 14). God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1). If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.

John Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion, I. VII. 5.

Referenced in a Kindle sample of Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Part One: Presuppositional Apologetics Positively Stated, Chapter 1, God in the Dock, Section: By What Standard.

Well worth reading the sample, and it’s free!

Read Full Post »

Reformation 21 – Answers from Dr Oliphint

Last month I think it was, when Reformation 21 invited readers to submit their Apologetic questions to Dr Scott Oliphint. He has now started to answer them. I did send off an email so I’ll have to wait and see if he was able to find a slot to answer mine.

Go HERE for the first couple of answers.

Read Full Post »

Church History Lectures 2013

The lecture dates for next year have been finalised though the titles may need a little tweaking. Here’s the dates for your diary.

February 11th 2013. Richard Brooks, Octavius Winslow 1808 – 1878

March 4th 2013. Daffyd Morris, Subject TBA

April 8th 2013. Geoff Thomas, Cornelius Van Til

Read Full Post »

An Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics

Cornelius Van Til (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Geoff Thomas kindly forwarded ‘An Introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics’ by Ian Clary. It doesn’t go into an enormous amount of detail but is well worth a read to get a taste for the Presuppositional method.

After a brief introduction Clary outlines The Task of Apologetics as fourfold going on to briefly summarise the three schools of thought, Evidential, Classical and Presuppositional. On the apologetic task Clary writes:

John M. Frame explains that there are three aspects to apologetics. First, apologetics is proof; it presents a rational basis for the Christian faith and proves it be true (cf.  John 14:11). Second, apologetics is defense; it answers the challenges of unbelief (cf. Phil. 1:7). Third, apologetics is offense; it attacks the foolishness of unbelief (cf. 1 Cor. 1:18-2:16). In addition to this tripartite understanding of apologetics William Edgar adds that commending the faith is just as important as defending it. Therefore the command to evangelize is integral to apologetics. “Evangelism and apologetics are seamlessly linked and together function under the rubric of the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20).”

The bulk of the article considers Some Basic Tenets. There are four of these and I’ll briefly try to summarise them, using Clary’s order. It’s in the introduction to this section where we find ‘This list is not exhaustive, but will hopefully give an adequate basis for understanding what one writer has called “kung-fu” apologetics.”

Not only can ‘Kung Fu’ be dangerous for an opponent but a little knowledge can be dangerous for the practitioner. So we need to be careful that we do not use this method inappropriately, or think we are some kind of Apologetics ‘Martial Artist’ only to get battered in our first encounter. The need for humility and graciousness is paramount.

Antithesis

This section is concerned with two diametrically opposed views. Here’s a section from the article that puts it well:

The notion of antithesis is reflected in Scripture, as seen in the 1 Corinthians 2:14 passage noted above. Paul could ask in 2 Corinthians 6:14-16 what relation does righteousness have with lawlessness, or light with darkness? Here, Paul likely builds on the teaching of Jesus in Mark 9:40 who said, “For the one who is not against us is for us.” And of course, the antithesis can be traced all the way back to the garden of Eden after the fall where God said to Satan in Genesis 3:15 that he would put enmity between he and the woman, between his offspring and hers.

Point of Contact

I have heard people misrepresent PA by saying there is no point in evangelising and there is nothing in common with the unbeliever. On the contrary there are two very powerful points of contact. This is not talking about a common interest like DIY or stamp collecting but a theological ‘common ground’ a point of contact. These are two-fold and extremely powerful. Everyone lives in God’s world and the evidence for this confronts the unbeliever every moment of every day wherever they are. The Bible tells us quite explicitly that God has made it plain, His eternal power and divine nature are ‘clearly seen’ because God has made it so. Clary puts it this way,

Experientially, the non-Christian lives in God’s world and is confronted daily with general revelation. God’s revelation is clear whether an unbeliever observes creation from the farthest galaxy to the smallest cell. The apostle Paul makes this point in Romans 1:20 when he says that God’s invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—are “clearly seen” in the created order.

The second point of contact is internal to each and every person as we are all made in the image of God. We have a conscience and there is a knowledge of God though suppressed in unrighteousness. Clary again,

Alongside revelation in the external world, the unbeliever internally has an experience of God: in conscience. Immediate knowledge of God, since conception, renders the unbeliever without excuse. This knowledge is a result of the unbeliever bearing the image of God and the implanted sensus deitatis. Paul says in Romans 1:21 that unbelievers “know God” but do not glorify him. Therefore every apologetic appeal is to something already known by the unbeliever. If by God’s grace that knowledge is brought to remembrance, then conversion occurs. However, if the unbeliever continues in hardness of heart, the apologist has still accomplished his or her task of showing the unbeliever that deep down inside, they truly know God. This only furthers unbelievers’ responsibility to believe.

Ultimate Commitment

This point is to do not just with authority, but with final authority. Once all the layers have been peeled away what is it we are standing on. One of the criticisms of PA and Van Til according to Clary is that of ‘circular reasoning’. We answer this by saying, doesn’t every one do that. I have posted on this before but this to me is the very power of the method. I must assume my conclusion because it’s my Ultimate Commitment or Final Authority – if I didn’t it wouldn’t be my final authority it would be something else. As a Christian surely my final authority, my ultimate commitment must be to Christ and His Word. Here’s a passage from Clary’s article,

The real issue comes down to justifying one’s starting point. Can the non-Christian substantiate their autonomous reason as a legitimate and rational epistemic foundation? To do so, he or she must first assume reason before it can be proven to be a justifiable authority. This is what Van Til called a “vicious circle.” He could also say, “To admit one’s own presuppositions and to point out the presuppositions of others is therefore to maintain that all reasoning is, in the nature of the case, circular reasoning. The starting-point, method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another.”

Transcendental Argument (TAG)

This is the one that is the most difficult to get my head around. I can see it, but have difficulty explaining it. So I obviously haven’t got a clear grasp of it – yet. So I’m not going to attempt an explanation at this point but to merely give some tasters from Clary and tempt you to check out the full article. And if you have a simple way of explaining this then I would love to hear it. Here’s a tempter from Clary,

Van Til once wrote, “At the outset it ought to be clearly observed that very system of thought necessarily has a certain method of its own.” For Van Til, the only cogent method of apologetics, from the Christian perspective, is the transcendental method. The most significant contribution that Van Til made to apologetics, what has been called a contribution of Copernican dimensions, is the “transcendental argument” for the existence of God.

Hope that helps someone that’s as new to this as I am. Come back to see if I am making progress.

You can find the full article at Apologetics Journal. There are a bunch of footnotes I have left out that you will be able to check out in the full article.

Read Full Post »

Rally for Reason

Cover of Faith and Reason

Taking a look at the Atheist Rally for Reason website makes one wonder if they really know what they are doing. The reason (there’s that word) I say this is because there are so many Christian books that encourage or use reason, so many in fact, that it might be profitable to list them here. Why Atheists think they have the monopoly on reason is a mystery – apart from them seeking to occupy that ground with the hope that ‘Joe Public’ will be fooled into thinking Christians don’t think. The reality is however, Christians lament that thinking in general about anything at all goes on far less today. The Rally for Reason is a good example.

Here’s a few Book Titles (in no particular order):

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism by Tim Keller

Reasonable Faith by William Lame Craig

Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics edited by Paul Copan & William Lane Craig

Reason to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity by R C Sproul

REASONS OF THE HEART by William Edgar

Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith by Ronald H. Nash

The point is not necessarily to recommend the above list but merely to note that Christians do not have an aversion to reason. The above titles are only those that have the word reason in them. There are many many more books that employ the God-given gift of reason but do not have the word in the title. Whatever flag (these particular) atheists are rallying around can’t exclusively be around the flag pf reason. Their Rally for Reason is therefore to my mind completely unreasonable.

God Himself exhorts sinners, inviting them to think and to apply reason – not only in dealing with God but with each other:

Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.

Lev 19:17  ”You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.

Dan 4:34  At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;

Dan 4:36  At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me.

Act 17:2  And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,

Act 18:19  They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.

Jas 3:17  But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.

1Pe 3:15  but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

Related articles

• Rally for Reason (str.typepad.com)

Read Full Post »

History Lecture – Axminster after 1662 – Audio Available

By Bartholomew Ashwood - First Minister of Axminster

The Audio for this excellent lecture by Stephen Rees is now available.

Either listen here:

Or right-click HERE to download.

Related articles

• Church History Lecture – Axminster Ecclesiastica 1600-1698 (xercised.wordpress.com)
• 1662 and all that (eardstapa.wordpress.com)
• Church History Lectures 2012 (xercised.wordpress.com)

Read Full Post »

Church History Lecture – Axminster Ecclesiastica 1600-1698

This evening we heard the second of this years Church History Lectures. And what a lecture it was! What a privilege to be there. And what a challenge to our generation!

The Lecture was given by Steven Rees, minister of Stockport Grace Baptist Church with the title ‘A Church in the Wilderness  - Axminster after 1662′. This is another lecture connected with ‘The Great Ejection of 1662′ only this lecture focused on one particular church rather than a broad sweep as Gary Brady brought us last month.

There were so many things in this lecture that stood out but two initial points right at the start and very powerfully made. First point, God is concerned that we remember the past and Stephen cited several texts to show this, and secondly, the priority given by God  of the local church or congregation. Stephen used The Axminster Ecclesiastica 1600-1698 edited by Ken Howard as the basis for his lecture.

I thought this was one of the best lectures I have heard and it deserves to be heard by as many people as possible. In the wisdom of God it’s ironic that one of the best lectures I have heard was given by a relatively unknown minister at a relatively unknown church to about 30 relatively unknown people. The ways of God are past finding out.

As soon as it becomes available I’ll give links.

* The next lecture will be 7:30pm 23rd April – speaker Jeremy Walker: Latimer – God’s Bulldog.

Read Full Post »

The Problem of Evil – 1

The Problem of Evil has been described as the Achilles Heal of the Christian faith and when discussing Christianity in almost any context this ‘problem’ or difficulty in one form or another is raised as an objection to the Christian faith. I read yesterday morning the best explanation I have read or heard. As  point of interest, the very fact there are several Christian answers to the problem of evil should also indicate to the unbeliever that it’s not the problem they would like to think it is or maybe even hope it is. The reality is there are answers but are not acceptable to the sinner. As Jesus said: they will not come to the light in order that their deeds be exposed - in this case the exposure of their own inescapable bias.

As indicated in a previous comment I am slowly working my way through Greg Bahnsen‘s book (Kindle) Always Ready: Direction for Defending the Faith. The chapter on The Problem of Evil is the longest chapter so far (about halfway) in the book and is so well stated that it’s definitely worth a post. My task now is to try and convey this to you.

The problem is normally stated as follows:

1. God is all-good.
2. God is all-powerful.
3. Evil exists.

If God were both benevolent and Almighty evil would not exist. Evil does exist so Christianity cannot be true. However, Bahnsen adds a fourth premise that God has a purpose – unknown to us –  in the evil we see, feel and hear about.

Here’s Bahnsen from pages 144 & 145:

However the critic here overlooks a perfectly reasonable way to assent to all three of these propositions.

If the Christian presupposes that God is perfectly and completely good—as Scripture requires us to do—then he is committed to evaluating everything within his experience in the light of that presupposition. Accordingly, when the Christian observes evil events or things in the world, he can and should retain consistency with his presupposition about God’s goodness by now inferring that God has a morally good reason for the evil that exists. God certainly must be all-powerful in order to be God; He is not to be thought of as overwhelmed or stymied by evil in the universe. And God is surely good, the Christian will profess—so any evil we find must be compatible with God’s goodness. This is just to say that God has planned evil events for reasons which are morally commendable and good.

 

To put it another way, the apparent paradox created by the above three propositions is readily resolved by adding this fourth premise to them:

4. God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which exists.

When all four of these premises are maintained, there is no logical contradiction to be found, not even an apparent one. It is precisely part of the Christian’s walk of faith and growth in sanctification to draw proposition 4 as the conclusion of propositions 1-3.

Best to leave it there for now. But in another post I will track back a little and try to show you how and why Bahnsen gets us there.

 

Read Full Post »

God Is Not Great: Christopher Hitchens

Cover via Amazon

Now I have a Kindle it’s so easy to download and buy stuff – that’s good and bad. It’s good, for example because amongst other things I bought ‘God is not Great‘ for £0.99p. It’s bad because no matter what the format I still have to find time to read the stuff. A window of opportunity opened and so I began to read. It was also a time to find the drawback of the kindle I have of not being able to type notes fast enough and so it’s really hard work. I need a pen and a notepad with it. May I’ll get faster and improve with use.

I’m assuming he (Hitchens) will lay out his store as it were in the first chapter, so here’s a few points to be going on with from Chapter 1.

1. I like his style writing – he has [had] great skill with words and was obviously very well read.

2. I like his honesty. He tells it how he sees it. He calls a spade a spade as we say. And I like writers that do that. His honesty doesn’t extend however to a correct understanding of Christianity. He continuously (as does Dawkins) misrepresents Christianity (see point 3).

3. Sadly, from what I read he never ever really understood the Gospel. This view may be wrong – I guess his brother might know – but it’s how he writes.

4. He talks a lot about Religion. Yes Christianity is a Religion. And there can be stupid and very bad Christians – but this doesn’t actually invalidate it as truth. It certainly doesn’t help but it doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

There’s a big problem with the Title. For such a specific claim you would have thought it important to be specific about the God he is talking about. Is it the Christian God, the God of Islam or the God of his own imagination. Here’s just a couple of quotes.

Many of them never believed, and many of them abandoned faith after a difficult struggle. That might be his experience but it isn’t mine. And in any case even if it were true it still wouldn’t invalidate the truth claims of Christianity. All that proves is the weakness of the human condition. You say, why doesn’t God help them then. In my experience He does – for example my own mother that died of bone cancer and many other I know of.

‘We may differ on many things, but what we respect is free inquiry (Really! see paragraph below), open-mindedness, and the pursuit of ideas for their own sake.

God did not create man in his own image. Evidently (There are other explanations for so many religions but it doesn’t suit his case to give any evidence even if he could), it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths, that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilization.

Imagine that you can perform a feat of which I am incapable. Imagine, in other words, that you can picture an infinitely benign and all-powerful creator, who conceived of you, then made and shaped you, brought you into the world he had made for you, and now supervises and cares for you even while you sleep. Imagine, further, that if you obey the rules and commandments that he has lovingly prescribed, you will qualify for an eternity of bliss and repose. I do not say that I envy you this belief (because to me it seems like the wish for a horrible form of benevolent and unalterable dictatorship), but I do have a sincere question. Why does such a belief not make its adherents happy? It must seem to them that they have come into possession of a marvelous secret, of the sort that they could cling to in moments of even the most extreme adversity. This quotation serves to demonstrate his understanding of the Gospel is 100% wrong. Any decent historian may not believe it but should be able to tell you what it is. Sadly, Hitchens doesn’t have a clue and his readers will just slavishly and uncritically swallow it. His Atheism is poisoning everything!

Since reading the first chapter I have listened to a discussion of the book first broadcast back in 2008. This is a series of 8 available at Unchained Radio for $0.98 cents each. (I think they might be available for free) I’ve now listened to them all and I’d say they are worth every penny (I am English). To buy them go HERE. These guys are way more able than I am but demonstrate rather uncomfortably for Atheists that Christian apologists (especially Presuppositional apologists) have good solid scriptural apologetic arguments and the debating skills to take them on. I’m being polite when I say they (Paul Manata in this case) completely destroy Christopher Hitchens arguments, method, worldview and just about everything else besides. Whether he listened to the programs back then, I can’t say, but he was well able to defend himself at the time. The reason for ‘flagging them up’ here (he can no longer defend himself) is because as one of the ‘Four Horsemen’ an awful lot of weight will be given to his words. I have no doubt in the coming days we will be hearing a lot of his writing and of his legacy to the Atheistic cause.

After listening to Paul Manata discuss the book I am left wondering why Hitchens was so popular a writer. A book was mentioned in one of the broadcasts. With a Kindle it’s possible to download sample sections. So I read a sample of the book ‘On Bullshit‘ by philosopher Harry Frankfurt as it was recommended by Paul Manata. By the criteria of the book Dawkins, Hitchens and the other ‘Horsemen’ are probably no more than a bunch of ‘Bullshitters’ and people love it. Frankfurt has a sequel to ‘On Bullshit’ and it’s well worth reading the sample section of ‘On Truth’. Frankfurt thinks they (Bullshitters) are worse than liars. We need to make sure that as Christians we don’t follow their example.

Out of curiosity and a search through YouTube I found a video of an Atheist convention. Hitchens was filmed with an 8 (yes that’s Eight!) year old girl asking him what books she should read. He listed a few books and is amazed to find she had read them. Now here’s the thing: She said she wanted to be a Free Thinker just like him. We (Christians) are accused of indoctrination if we tell children about The Lord of Glory but if 8-year-old little girls are taken to an Atheist convention (her Mother stood proudly looking on) they are free thinkers. And Christians are accused of being closed-minded! That’s the end of this post – I’m speechless!

HT for the broadcasts to my friend Jim over at The Domain for Truth.

Read Full Post »

‘Against All Odds’ by Paul Connolly

'Against All Odds' by Paul Connelly

I’ve just finished reading ‘Against All Odds’ by Paul Connolly - Kindle edition. It’s quite a brave book to write, it’s honestly written and pulls no punches (pun intended). The early chapters are quite a harrowing account of life in an institution till he was forced to leave at the age of 17. Paul was abandoned at two weeks old and left out with the rubbish and his book is really an account of his ongoing battle with a sense of worthlessness. If you are offended by very strong language then I don’t recommend you read it. But if you can get past the language and some of the abuse it really is a story of survival ‘Against All The Odds’. We see or meet people and perhaps comment how some individuals have something written on their forehead. For some it’s the word ‘Jail’, for others it’s ‘Abuse Me’ or it might be ‘Thug’ and we all see these labels from time to time. We might also comment on how some kids often through no fault of their own, do not stand a chance – they are marked as it were from birth. Such was Paul Connelly, at least that’s what he was told.

It a story that ultimately triumphs over a horrendous upbringing and the damage that followed him into adulthood and that he still is not entirely free from like the rage within him that he struggles to control ever day. Thankfully he found, in his words, a wonderful woman and he now has two wonderful young boys. It is remarkable indeed that he has defeated the lies of those so-called ‘carers’ by living a normal life.

What’s my response to the book as a Christian? Because of the link that altered me to the book I naively expected there to be some Christian input. It didn’t take long for me to realise this wasn’t going to happen. The only encounter Paul had with Christianity was in the home so understandably there is no mention of God in the book except towards the end when he contemplates killing the ‘carers’. These were individuals that by any standard had really escaped true justice in spite of the best efforts of some police officers. Here’s the passage at the end of Chapter 12 where Paul writes:

“Some of them have paid something for their crimes, but they havent paid nearly enough and I dont believe in a just God who punishes the wicked after death. I wish that I did because, if anyone ever deserved fire and brimstone, it was them.”

It’s a fascinating quote because it shows how Paul has a sense of justice that unfortunately does not extend to some of the victims he battered senseless. Did they all really ‘deserve’ it, or even most of them – I doubt it. I’m reminded of the end of ‘Unforgiven’ with Clint Eastwood. Little Bill is facing death and says ‘not like this, I don’t deserve this’ to which William Munny (Eastwood) replies ‘what’s deserve got to do with it’. Unlike the justice of men, the justice of God is righteous and He knows all the details. The fact is we all, me, Paul, everyone, deserves the judgement of God. But through the free Grace of God in the Gospel of Christ repentant sinners may go free.

There are some great insights into the human condition as he deals honestly with his own inward state and the resultant struggle within. This is something Paul would fail to appreciate but he is articulating what the real problem is: it’s a heart problem. Jesus teaches quite specifically, that it isn’t what comes out of a man or the exterior - how good and righteous we make ourselves out to be, even deluding ourselves – it’s the sinful nature within that is the problem. And only God in Christ can sort that out. His book made me think I should be less judgemental. That drunk that we see staggering down the road: I do not know his story. Maybe he has a similar story to Paul. As a Christian what’s the very best I can do for such people? I can hold out hope and give them words of eternal life. And where possible maybe a hot drink and a non-condemnatory chat and treat them as a human being of worth, people made in the image of God yet ravaged by sin. Though terribly marred by sin they nevertheless have the stamp of God’s image upon them.

The full title is ‘Against All The Odds: The Most Amazing True Life Story You’ll Ever Read’. It isn’t the most amazing true life story I’ve ever read, it is an amazing story, but the Life of Jesus Christ is the most amazing story I’ve ever read and am likely to read. Here’s where I’m left disappointed and sad: and if somehow Paul does read these words I trust he’ll take them as well-meant and full of hope. Although it’s a marvellous outcome for him he’s still without Christ and without hope. I admire him but at the last day when he stands before God to give an account if he is without Christ he’ll be damned. There’s just no easy or nice way to say it. But it’s true. Without a Saviour he’ll end up in the same place as his abusers. I know this is an unpalatable truth, but really it is the great leveler as ‘we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ’. But ‘Christ loves the unlovely that lovely they may be’. This is real hope!

Mez McConnell

All the while reading about Paul I couldn’t but help compare his life – and outcome – with another book I read a little while ago by Mez McConnell ’Is There Anybody Out There‘: A Journey from Despair to Hope. Mez suffered horrific abuse from beatings and drug use that today affect his health and probably always will. Mez turned to Christ and is now the Pastor of a Church. He works with the dregs of society, the druggy, the dropouts and seeks to lead them to Christ. Check out a previous post on Mez and the links there to find out more. Here’s his Blog. And read his book.

As good a story as Paul’s is and as inspiring as it is, it falls short. Why? I’d like to believe that Paul seeks to help those caught in desperate circumstances but his resources are finite and the hope he offers is limited to this life. But the Gospel comes with the Power of God to change us from within, to forgive, to cleanse and to keep. Paul couldn’t help me – I couldn’t afford his services, but the Salvation offered by Christ is free to all that will call on Him. And Christ will never turn anyone away.

It’s turned out well for Paul, and I’m glad it has. But his story is unfinished without a Saviour – and so is yours.

UPDATE: Sincere apologies, I mis-spelt Connolly. Now corrected. I know a Connelly and didn’t notice the difference until it was pointed out to me.

Related articles

• Against All Odds: Paul Connolly who didn’t learn to read until he was 25 tops e-book charts (dailymail.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Into the New Year 2012

Happy New Year to one and all. Here’s C H Spurgeon’s Morning devotional for January 1st:

“They did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year.” –Joshua 5:12 

Israel’s weary wanderings were all over, and the promised rest was attained. No more moving tents, fiery serpents, fierce Amalekites, and howling wildernesses: they came to the land which flowed with milk and honey, and they ate the old corn of the land. Perhaps this year, beloved Christian reader, this may be thy case or mine. Joyful is the prospect, and if faith be in active exercise, it will yield unalloyed delight. To be with Jesus in the rest which remaineth for the people of God, is a cheering hope indeed, and to expect this glory so soon is a double bliss. Unbelief shudders at the Jordan which still rolls between us and the goodly land, but let us rest assured that we have already experienced more ills than death at its worst can cause us. Let us banish every fearful thought, and rejoice with exceeding great joy, in the prospect that this year we shall begin to be “for ever with the Lord.”

A part of the host will this year tarry on earth, to do service for their Lord. If this should fall to our lot, there is no reason why the New Year’s text should not still be true. “We who have believed do enter into rest.” The Holy Spirit is the earnest of our inheritance; He gives us “glory begun below.” In heaven they are secure, and so are we preserve in Christ Jesus; there they triumph over their enemies, and we have victories too. Celestial spirits enjoy communion with their Lord, and this is not denied to us; they rest in His love, and we have perfect peace in Him: they hymn His praise, and it is our privilege to bless Him too. We will this year gather celestial fruits on earthly ground, where faith and hope have made the desert like the garden of the Lord. Man did eat angels’ food of old, and why not now ? O for grace to feed on Jesus, and so to eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan this year!

Read Full Post »