LORDS COULD VOTE DOWN MARRIAGE BILL ON 3 JUNE

Just had the following email come through from Colin Hart – Coalition for Marriage.

 

Dear marriage supporter,

Lord Dear, an independent cross-bench Peer and respected former police Chief Constable, will lead a vote against the Government’s same-sex marriage Bill at Second Reading in the House of Lords on Monday 3 June.

If he wins, the Bill will be defeated outright. It will be a decisive blow for the Government’s undemocratic plans to redefine marriage. But don’t worry if Lord Dear doesn’t achieve a majority. There will still be other opportunities to defeat the Government at later stages in the Lords.

Opposition to the Bill is growing. Last night on BBC Question Time, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the plans to redefine marriage had “upset vast numbers of people” and generated a “real sense of anger” among voters.

He said: “I have just never felt that this is what we should be focusing on. This change does redefine marriage. For millions and millions of people who are married, the meaning of marriage changes. There is a real sense of anger among many people who are married that any government thinks it has the ability to change the definition of an institution like marriage.”

WATCH the video

The Government is in disarray. Today they’ve announced another U-turn on the Bill. They will hold a review to decide whether heterosexual couples should be allowed to opt for a civil partnership rather than marriage. That would cost the nation between £3bn and £4bn in public service pensions alone.

We’ve been right all along. This Bill is about unravelling the place of marriage in our society, regardless of the social or financial cost. While the rest of us struggle to pay our bills, the political elite are unpicking marriage rather than sorting out the economy.

That’s why the Lords vote on Monday 3 June is a big day for the nation and for our campaign.

Before the Bill gets to the Lords, MPs in the House of Commons get the chance to vote on amendments to the Bill on Monday and Tuesday. At the end of Tuesday’s debate they’ll have a chance to vote once more on the Bill as a whole at Third Reading. We will keep you posted with the latest news.

We are shifting the debate, and we believe it is possible to win in the Lords. So let’s keep going. Together we can keep the real meaning of marriage.

 

Read Full Post »

BBC Question Time – 16/05/2013

Question Time (TV series) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I started watching ‘Question Time’ last evening but fortunately fell asleep only to come round in time for a question on changing the definition of marriage. I wonder why I watch this program sometimes, but I do as a way to stay try to be ‘informed’.

There used to be a transcript of the program so this is just from memory. The question was: an online petition has been signed by 650,000 (approx) people, is it time for the government to have a re-think? My brief answer – not a chance. The only thing that will make a government or MP re-think is if they think it will gain them votes. In other words, they want to keep their job.

Question Time is a good name because Answer Time it ain’t! Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond MP gave a sort of answer saying he had voted against it but expected the bill to be passed. Shadow Immigration Minister, Chris Bryant MP got quite emotional at one point as openly Homosexual.

Not one of the panel answered the question – well I suppose they did. The answer was no. What they didn’t do was give any rationale for it. Basically, nice people let other people do anything they like because it makes them happy. Oh, and it’s what the people want. Funny how the people want a Referendum on the EU, the people, I believe, would like to see the return of the death penalty – don’t see any sign of ‘the people’ getting those. But because homosexuals want to re-define marriage, suddenly it’s because the people want it.

It’s those nasty intolerant bigoted Christians that believe the Bible – that’s the real problem. And so it was left to the questioner to have his say. Once he started to speak, it was clear he was a Christian – man, did the heat turn up in that place or what!. The poor bloke ended up nearly shouting to get a hearing.

The bill is to be voted on next week I think. So we can look forward to any combination coming together in ‘marriage’. Except it won’t be marriage. Marriage was given by God. So here we see probably the clearest act of autonomy and rebellion towards God. The basic building block of society given by God is rejected. We ought to expect a perversion of what God has graciously given. The Bill will probably go through – whether this is (further) evidence that God is handing us over as a Nation is up for discussion. But a scary prospect all the same. Let’s pray Parliament will come to their senses and vote it out.

Related articles

• Hammond: ‘Sense of anger’ over gay marriages (itv.com)
• No huge demand for gay marriage, says Philip Hammond (guardian.co.uk)
• ‘No great demand for gay marriage’ (belfasttelegraph.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

One Way Freedom of Speech

Along with thousands of other people I received an email today from Christian Concern about a bus campaign in London. I’d already heard about it though on BBC’s ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4. Basically though, some time ago Stonewall (Homosexual pressure group) ran a bus campaign in London with ‘Some are Gay – Get over it’ on the side and with Stonewall’s name attached to the poster.

Another group are wanting to launch a similar campaign but with ‘Not Gay! Ex Gay, Post-Gay and Proud – Get Over It’ on the side with links to http://www.anglican-mainstream.net & http://www.core-issues.org clearly displayed on the side.

Boris Johnson Conservative party ‘Character in Chief’ all round personality and Mayor of London has other ideas. Consequently,

On Thursday (28 February) the High Court will hear claims that Boris Johnson, Chair of Transport for London denied a Christian group the freedom to express its views on the legitimacy of therapy for those dealing with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction.

I know that if a homosexual were to call some counselling organisations and ask for help to change from what they believed to be a sinful lifestyle they would find a frosty and hostile reception. And so in the same piece e read:

Any alternative to the homosexual lifestyle is deemed unacceptable and TfL are arguing that Christian hope must be suppressed for the ‘protection of morals’.

Didn’t you know, Free Speech only works one way! I’ll be delighted but staggered if they win the right to have the campaign. They certainly ought to be allowed to have it. If that happens it’ll 3 cheers for common sense and consistency. So,

On Thursday, the Trust will ask Judges to reverse the ban on the basis that the Mayor had unlawfully restricted free speech, and had discriminated against the Trust by stifling one side of the debate on the issue.

Related articles

• Christian group challenges ban on gay poster campaign (telegraph.co.uk)

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 »

Brian Cox demonstrates non-neutral presuppositions

English: Professor Brian cox at Science Foo camp (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

There’s quite a spread in this weeks (26th Jan – 1st Feb) Radio Times (Weekly TV & Radio Schedule magazine) on Professor Brian Cox AKA to celebrate his new BBC series ‘Wonders of Life’. A few paragraphs below from the article show how anyone can be blind to their own presuppositions. Brian Cox demonstrates non-neutral presuppositions, and he does it so well it was worth a Blog post all on it’s own.

‘Creationists will almost certainly say his new series is rubbish, but Cox sees little point in even trying to engage with them. “If you don’t accept evidence then there’s no real point in having a discussion. Because what am I going to say? I’m just going to say, ‘Well, first of all, you have to learn to accept evidence.’ I don’t see any issue with religious scientists; I don’t share their view myself, but it’s not logically inconsistent.” The notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago, on the other hand – “that’s just absolute drivel at every level”.

Which are more bonkers, does he think – creationists or astrologists? “In a way, astrology is less annoying, because I see it as part of the entertainment business and therefore it’s not particularly problematic. But the sensible answer is they’re both equally so. It’s the ability to dismiss evidence that I get irritated about, against my better judgment, because I’d rather not. I mean, obviously there are people who think crazy things. But it does annoy me.”

Any letters of complaint from viewers who don’t believe in evolution will “go straight in the bin”. If the rest of us love Wonders of Life, though, he will take almost no personal credit, instead putting his popularity down to the role of public service broadcasting. It’s a positively Reithian argument, of which I’m pretty sure Attenborough himself would approve.’

Once again an Atheist just assumes his own bias is the correct one. Creationists (belief in a Creator) I know that are scientists examine the evidence but come to a different interpretation of that evidence. He just throws out the phrase but it has so much poured into it – as he tries to take the evidential high ground. But the high ground is already occupied by the Creator.

There’s so much wrong with the above paragraphs that it almost impossible to engage with them in the limited time I have available. I mean, unless he can accept his own presuppositions on how he uses and interprets evidence there’s ’little point in even trying to engage with’ him.

For the record I struggle with the age of the earth and do find it difficult to reconcile what is observable with a young earth. I find there are problems with both young and old earth (Creationists) creation accounts. But what I would expect to find is unanimity on the special creation of Adam & Eve and that God did in fact create the ‘Heavens and the Earth’ even though there are differences over the mechanism He used. I would also expect to find agreement with several other Christian doctrines such as The Trinity, The Fall, Jesus, The Resurrection of Jesus, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the reality of Heaven and of Hell, of Final Judgement, of Original Sin and the doctrine of Total Depravity, Justification by Faith Alone and many others. Given this list what does Brian mean by ‘religious’. I’m sure he will not mean any of these. What I suspect he will mean is some fairly insipid wet version, if at all of Christianity that he can easily dismiss and control – which is not Christian at all!

One problem with the article is that we just don’t know how many revisions it has gone through and how much is left of what the good doctor actually said. I do grant this.

And why doesn’t Brian ever say where it all came from. He talks about the wonders of the stars, how we are all made of star-dust but never once have I heard him say where it all came from. How did it all start Brian. I suppose it must have come from nothing and we all know that’s impossible. Given his own materialistic worldview how exactly does he explain the origin of life. If there was a spark where did the spark come from? Where did the primordial soup come from and who is the cook? Atheists can’t answer these questions but instead try to dismiss the God of the bible with a dismissive ‘show me your evidence’.

The Bible has a thing to say about evidence. And it’s found in the New Testament, Chapter 1 of Romans:

19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

In other words God has made it EVIDENT. But people choose in their rebellion against God to suppress that evidence. So we bring evidence on the basis of what God has said. And the only comeback from an atheist when boiled right down is ‘I disagree’ I prefer my own opinion. And that’s it. It’s not science in the end no matter how it’s presented. it’s a conflict of worldviews, a conflict of authority.

Related articles

• SUN professor Brian Cox inspires so many to study physics at university where he teaches it’s forced to lift entry requirements (thesun.co.uk)
• Brian Cox interview: stars in his eyes – Telegraph (telegraph.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Is Christianity Probable?

Over the past months I’ve been listening to a number of discussions / debates between believers and non-believers and have been quite struck by the almost apologetic nature of the Christian in these discussions. I certainly do not believe we should be rude or abrasive in our discussions – but we ought to be firm and not let those that disagree with us so easily off the hook. Sometimes there just isn’t the time to get into a debate. But anyway, by apologetic in this instance I do not mean as a defense of the faith (apologetics) but in the ‘I really don’t want to be dogmatic about this, so I can’t tell you Christianity is absolutely true’ sense.

This is in direct contrast to a phrase Michael Robinson uses in his book ‘God does exist‘. He writes: ‘The believer is not to defend the faith with Probabilities’ (p. 92). It strikes me that this is exactly what many Christian apologists are doing, defending the faith with probabilities! Whether this is a deliberate charm offensive to win over the non-Christian or a particular methodology I’m not 100% sure. However, the obvious question to ask is this: why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.

In fact one person I greatly admire gave what was (IMHO) the completely wrong answer. I couldn’t believe it, when the non-Christian said  ’ but you are assuming the very thing you are trying to prove!’. My first thought was ‘did he really say that?’ Greg Bahnsen uses the very same phrase to show how to completely disarm the unbeliever. Funny isn’t it, I never imagined anyone would actually use that phrase!! But they did. I was on the edge of my seat as it were in anticipation of the answer, but to my disappointment it didn’t come.

The answer that should have come was ‘of course, that’s right. If Jesus and the Word of God is my final authority then I will have to assume the thing I’m trying to prove or it wouldn’t be my final authority. And you do the same’ In fact as Bahnsen has said if I didn’t assume the thing I’m trying to prove something else would be my final authority.

The unbeliever assumes what he’s trying to prove as well. He assumes there is no God and ends up proving it. What a surprise! If he were to assume anything else he would be a believer. So all this talk of neutrality and intellectual credibility is just sheer nonsense. It’s a fiction, a facade or a lie, at best self-deception. Atheists seek to take the high ground supposedly of reason and neutrality but actually do neither. They use reason but can’t tell us how it’s grounded. They play the neutrality card but are anything but. What would be nice is some intellectual honesty.

So is Christianity probable? Absolutely not! Christianity is certain – it’s true. As I already said, why would anyone want to commit to a probability? If Jesus is only a probability I’m not interested.

Have popular scientists committed to a probability – no they haven’t. See the enthusiasm in their presentations. Is there really any suggestion they might be wrong? No. They have given themselves wholesale to rebellion against God and against His Christ. But thanks be unto God He still saves rebels. This is why Jesus came into the world, to save sinners and rebels.

Read Full Post »

BBC Question Time

Once again we see so clearly demonstrated the bias of the BBC on Question Time last evening. As usual Peter Hitchens is the lone voice ‘crying in the wilderness’ for the rest of the panel to ‘tut tut’ at. There are a lot of us out here that really do appreciate his public stand on these issues – and I think they know it. He’s not so alone as the BBC and other overbearing commentators like to make out. One example on this is the EU – where’s the Referendum I was promised! The Government would lose and so we can’t have a vote!

I slightly disagreed with Peter’s view on the status of the Gay Marriage issue – though it’s not really about that it’s about authority. It’s either our own ‘autonomous authority’ as superbly demonstrated by Will Self or God’s. Gay Marriage is a huge issue because it represents a quickly growing and already very powerful anti-Christian mindset. This is what we have seen in the US. But beware, there’s always a trade off. Once Christian standards have gone what will be left?

Will Self last night seemed to be saying that it doesn’t matter what you believe, so on his own worldview it’s perfectly acceptable to disagree with him. But when you do disagree he doesn’t like it. Yet he doesn’t have a leg to stand on and neither did any of the others whose whole ethos is summed up by being ‘nice’ yet actually believing in nothing.

I can’t understand how Will Self can be professor of ‘Contemporary Thought’ at Brunel University – well actually I can. Contemporary thought is to just call anyone that disagrees with you as either  Homophobic or Racist, but usually both. Maybe a Bigot as well. All three if you are a Christian. This is what Will Self so blatantly did last night to Peter within the space of about 10 minutes called him a ‘Homophobe’ and a ‘Racist’ and not a complaint from anyone on the totally ‘balanced’ panel or from the esteemed Dimbleby.

Peter painted a gloomy picture of where this country is heading with regards to the persecution of Christians to cackles and laughter of both panel and the majority of the audience. There was one brave lady in the audience that presented an opposing Christian perspective and I was surprised by the clapping of the audience but there was no support for her from the panel (apart from Peter). It’s the Establishment that want the perception of morality without the objective standards that only the Bible can bring.

Peter also demonstrated why voting Conservative now is no longer an option. I think we have a good MP but he belongs to a party that has seriously lost its way.

Read Full Post »

Women Bishops – Intended Consequences?

If you listen to the news, Prime Ministers Question Time, ‘BBC’s Question Time’ & ‘BBC’s Any Questions’ (haven’t listened to ‘Any Answers’ on this yet) you will quickly realise the decision has not gone down well. You will realise the poverty of Gospel input. There is next to no mention of God, certainly no mention of sin in the Gospel sense and no mention of the Bible. Obviously many of the comments are cherry picked to suit particular biases and interviews are mediated through the gatekeepers. We are told ‘the people’ are outraged by this. I’d like to know how they know that – I’m a people and I’ve never been asked! But we do know some surprising views. On Any Question one Rosie Harper said she would like those that are opposed to Women Priests to be ‘thrown out’. Now that wasn’t edited. I’ve been to an Any Questions broadcast and it isn’t edited – apart from a 7 second loop maybe. I’m guessing that view is not uncommon. The problem with the Anglican Church is its connection to the State. It’s the State Church and the State now wants its pound of flesh! In other words, agree politically or we’ll make you agree. What The State wants – whatever it tells you – is a church it can control.

A very good summary report was on the dreaded ‘Sunday:Religious News’ programme this morning. From what I can tell the piece does tell us where the Cof E is at on this topic. If you can get it on iTunes or via the BBC  iPlayer the relevant segment starts at 25m 10s till the end. For those outside the UK I’ll try and edit the segment out and post it up here for you to have a listen.

Now here’s why the title of this post is ‘Intended Consequences’. We all know about the law of unintended consequences but in this case in view of other debates and further decisions ‘coming down the pike’ it really is – I think – intended consequences.

The decisions to be made concern Homosexuals (LGB&T) in the church. Get women priests through first and it should be a formality to get the Homosexual issue sorted. In fact, not getting the women priests vote through actually helps the case. How so? Make the country so sick of all the debates and turn the ‘Traditionalists’ into a pariah and the outcry at the possibility of Homosexuals being barred in any way will be so strong the church will have no other way to go. Why? Because they are more concerned – or even only concerned – at what ‘the people’ think and not what God thinks. You will hear of how the church needs to come into the 21st or even into the 20th Century and at how the decision is not democratic. Well, if it’s a question of what ‘people’ think the church is not concerned about what people think ultimately.

The Bible – that’s God – says unless a person will repent of their sins and call upon Jesus Christ for Salvation they will be turned into hell forever. Now democracy will not solve that! Except you repent says Jesus, you will perish.

In many ways these debates are really about something else. The issue is really about the place and authority of God’s Word. ‘The People’ do not want the Bible and do not want King Jesus to rule over them. ‘The People’ want to rule themselves, to be in charge of their own destiny but it’s a lie. God is in control and His rule is not a democracy. All people will bow the knee to King Jesus one day either as Saviour & Lord or as Judge. That’s the real issue. And finally, in my view, Evangelicals, Reformed and Bible believing Christians should come out of the Anglican Church and get on with proclaiming the Gospel of the Grace of God. After all isn’t this reason for the Church of Jesus Christ?

Read Full Post »

Ideology Strikes again

It’s not often that I’m drop-jawed when listening to the news: but I was about half an hour ago when I heard

A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party.

To see more on this story go to BBC News. The story is on the front page of the Daily Telegraph.

For those outside the UK – UKIP is a main-stream political party and the children were removed because of UKIP’s position on Immigration and were seen by Rotheram City council as racist.

My immediate thought on hearing this was this; if a council can do this to a political party what will they do to Christians that have a different view on ‘Marriage’ for example.

If you are a minority that fits with an underlying Anti-Christian program you will be fine – but if not look out! I don’t think UKIP are any more supportive of Christian values that any other of the anti-Christian mainstream but it’s certainly a shot across the bows as councils flex their muscles. We’ll see if Rotherham gets away with it – doubtful this time. But the future looks bleak for this country. I can’t believe how far we have fallen. The US should look on this and beware.

Related articles

• Foster parents ‘stigmatised and slandered’ for being members of Ukip (telegraph.co.uk)
• Foster parents lose three kids from care for being in UKIP (thesun.co.uk)
• UKIP couple lose foster children (bbc.co.uk)

Read Full Post »

Minority Report

Just an observation:

Apparently the current Archbishop is a champion of minorities – as are several other outspoken Bishops and MP’s

Yet, when a minority blocks the appointment of women Bishops they are classed as outdated, sect like and not going with what the majority want.

There are several ways to describe this – speaking with forked tongue, speaking out of two sides of the mouth or just plain lying. They only support a minority when it furthers their own view and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Bible teaching or Truth.

The Reformed and Evangelicals should come out – but they won’t. The policy is keep the CoE together at all costs!

Tony Baldry MP said ”A broad church is being held to ransom by a few narrow minds.” Well Tony, it’s a narrow way.

Read Full Post »

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 »

The Olympic Ideal = Completely Vacuous

Friday evening saw the opening of the 2012 Olympics in London. Over here the journey of the Olympic flame has been reported quite religiously since starting it’s journey in Greece. As it traveled round the UK I was very disappointed to find that much of its journey took place via some form of non-athletic transportation. Just a s well it wasn’t public transport as it might not have made it! I was probably a bit naive to think that it would be carried by hand for the full journey – but whatever happened to the Olympic Spirit (whatever that is)!

The Olympic Flame!

The flame, with torch and carrier passed close by to where I live (see pic) so I thought I’d better go take a look. And what a spectacle it was. Along came the lone runner – I say alone in the sense just one person was carrying it – complete with huge entourage. I thought the bus following with a group of torch carriers on board looked like a bunch of zoo exhibits.

And so to the opening ceremony. To be honest I missed the first part, saw a few of the countries marching / ambling in, saw some other intermittent bits  and then watched the last hour. How glad am I to have missed most of it.

It didn’t finish till nearly one (01.00) in the morning, complete with fireworks. As a point to note – the Tennis (Wimbledon has to finish by Eleven (23.00) – but I guess the Olympics trumps them all and you’ll see why shortly.

I must admit to seeing shades of the ridiculous Eurovision Song Contest. You probably have to be a Brit to get that one!

Most of what I saw was the most ridiculous vacuous nonsense I have seen in a long time. Franky, to me, it was an embarrassment, devoid of any substance and a complete load of old tripe.

Here’s my take on it and why the above is true. When a Nation, as the UK has done, perhaps far more than any country in the world, ceases to believe in anything at all it ends up in complete vacuity. It believes in nothing. And the Olympic Spirit exemplifies that spirit.  And if you don’t believe me check out the words to the Olympic Hymn.

The whole ceremony was an exercise in the totalitarian doctrines of diversity and tolerance – and for the true meaning of that you will need to read the reverse. And that means mainly intolerance especially for the true Christian Faith of which very little is seen. And where it is seen in the spirit of diversity and tolerance it is stamped upon and rooted out. And this is why in a secular and rationalist State like the UK now is: disparate ideologies may unite in opposition to Jesus Christ.

There were moments when it looked like – and I now think it was – a secularist service of worship. We can laugh about it, and make fun of it, but behind it all and especially now is an ideology opposed to Christ.

At best the UK is now at a tipping point – if it hasn’t already tipped over. Of which more to come in other posts. I’m not discouraged by this; though it is a little scary.

Read Full Post »

Wearing the Cross or Preaching the Cross?

Millions of people all over the world wear a cross. A lady here in the UK has been ordered not to wear her cross at work. There is a campaign running and according to the campaigners the case has received considerable media coverage highlighting freedom of expression and the freedom to wear symbols of the Christian faith.

I received an email linking to the campaign. Here’s some of the blurb from the Not Ashamed of the Cross Website:

act now to protect christian freedoms.

Shirley Chaplin was barred from wearing her confirmation cross after nearly thirty years in front line nursing. Now hers is one of four landmark Christian freedom cases going to the European Court of Human Rights. Yet the British Government is not supporting Shirley and has even suggested that the cross is not a generally recognised form of practising the Christian faith.

Please contact the PM and your MP to urge the Government to support Shirley and historic Christian freedoms.

The cross is undeniably a symbol of the Christian faith but wearing one round the neck isn’t. And neither is wearing one a requirement of the Christian faith. I do not find a text anywhere in the Bible that says wearing one is either a symbol of the Christian faith or that wearing one is required of Christians. So on the one hand the campaign is laudable especially in terms of free speech yet on the other it completely – or potentially - misrepresents the Cross of Christ.

What the Bible does speak about very clearly is the ‘Offence of the Cross’. This explicitly refers to the Preaching of the Cross – and it’s this preaching of the Cross that is so hugely offensive to the natural man. My fear about this campaign – I’m aware good people will be involved – is that it may protect the freedom to wear one as a Christian symbol but forbid the preaching of the Cross itself. Why is this so?

We must not and we cannot confuse the cross as a symbol (worn around the neck) and the Preaching of the Cross as revealed to us in the Bible. I’m certainly not ashamed of the cross but wearing it round the neck has nothing at all to do with the Christian faith – that is the Gospel of Christ.

The message of the Cross of Christ tells us very clearly that God Himself has provided the only unique means whereby sinners may be saved from the wrath of God. To first century Jews and Gentiles (everybody else) this message was massively offensive and it is no less so today.

I also fear the campaign at best will give Christians the freedom to wear their faith symbol in the marketplace of ideas, in a society that propagates diversity and where all religions are equal – which of course they are not. Christianity is either true or it isn’t. And as it is in fact the truth ALL other religions are false. Modern sensibilities will not allow this, but is what people and governments need to hear but do not want to hear and will not listen.

What was the cross? It was an instrument of torture, of brutality, of humiliation, of utter degradation! It was a place reserved for criminals, a place of excruciating agony and a place of bloody agonising death! This is the true Cross where my dear Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ stood in my place to suffer the wrath of God upon His holy and righteous soul. The Cross is the only way of Salvation, there is no other! We are either saved by the cross of Christ or not at all.

The Apostle Paul said, ‘For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God’ (1Co 1:18). It’s the word or the message of the cross not a symbol that’s needed.

If Shirley wins her case and is allowed to wear her cross, how will this advance the Gospel? I think not at all. I wish her well, I wish the campaign well, but I believe it’s a backward step as far as the Gospel of Christ is concerned. Let us therefore not be ashamed of the preaching of the Gospel and as God gives us opportunity let us speak of this cross, this place of propitiation.

Read Full Post »