Van Til Lecture – Audio Available

The Audio for the Van Til Lecture by Geoff Thomas is now available for download.

Right Click HERE ans Save As… to download.

The Church where the lecture was held described it as: Cornelius Van Til: His life, contemporaries, and the bedrock of his theology – the things men know but will not admit.

I thought that was a good summary.

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 »

Is Numbers Ch 7 the most boring chapter in the Bible?

Today Numbers Chapter 7 came around in the reading plan I follow. The chapter is 89 verses long and much of it is repeated 12 times but with a change of day (first, second etc.) and name of tribe and leader. Apart from those changes it’s then repeated through to verse 83. Thus:

Num 7:12 He who offered his offering the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah.
Num 7:13 And his offering was one silver plate whose weight was 130 shekels, one silver basin of 70 shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering;
Num 7:14 one golden dish of 10 shekels, full of incense;
Num 7:15 one bull from the herd, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering;
Num 7:16 one male goat for a sin offering;
Num 7:17 and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Nahshon the son of Amminadab.

This puzzled me for some time. A Christian friend of mine said each year he reached this chapter his practice was to read the first 17 verses and then jump forward to verse 84. But, I reasoned, if this is really the Word of God then each word is God-Breathed and ought to be read if for no other reason than that.

Here’s a new thing that struck me from this passage on reading it this morning . Every tribe was on exactly the same level, no tribe brought more and no tribe brought less. Bringing an offering to God is a great leveler. We bring it through Christ or it’s not accepted. And to state the obvious every single offering speaks of Jesus Christ and points to His once for all offering on Calvary.

Here’s another one, they did what the LORD told them to do. They brought their offering in the way He prescribed with no opportunity for one-upmanship. We don’t devise our own way of salvation – as many do today – we come God’s way not man’s way. We are justified through Grace , not works.

Just one last one. Despite what we might think, God is not in a hurry. The whole process of the chapter took 2 weeks. I reckon in our modern age we would have wanted to get it all done in a day. But no. It was a lengthy process and took time. Each tribe had time to contemplate what was going on. And by rushing through this chapter in order to get through the book we can miss the good things God has to say to us in His Word.

There’s more. So no! This chapter is not the most boring chapter in the Bible but is actually full of Glory and Wonder and I thank God for it. So till next year maybe. I actually look forward to this chapter each time it comes round. If we will think and spend time in the Word of God it really does speak of Christ and His Grace in the most surprising places.

Sometimes a light surprises the Christian while he sings;
It is the Lord, who rises with healing in His wings:
When comforts are declining, He grants the soul again
A season of clear shining, to cheer it after rain.

In holy contemplation we sweetly then pursue
The theme of God’s salvation, and find it ever new.
Set free from present sorrow, we cheerfully can say,
Let the unknown tomorrow bring with it what it may.

It can bring with it nothing but He will bear us through;
Who gives the lilies clothing will clothe His people, too;
Beneath the spreading heavens, no creature but is fed;
And He Who feeds the ravens will give His children bread.

Though vine nor fig tree neither their wonted fruit should bear,
Though all the field should wither, nor flocks nor herds be there;
Yet God the same abiding, His praise shall tune my voice,
For while in Him confiding, I cannot but rejoice.

Words: Will­iam Cow­per, Ol­ney Hymns (Lon­don: W. Ol­iv­er, 1779).

Read Full Post »

Church History Lecture

This years next Church History Lecture

7:30 pm Monday 4th March 2013

Title

“A Gentleman in Rags”.

Speaker: Dafydd Morris

Rev Morris is keeping this lecture as a bit of a surprise; but going by his previous visits it’s sure to be a profitable evening.

Everyone welcome at Bulkington Congregational Church, School Road, Bulkington, Warwickshire, CV12 9JD.

Read Full Post »

Is this Goodbye to Free Speech?

View of the House of Lords Chamber in the Palace of Westminster, London, looking from the galleries towards the Throne (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The second reading of the Same-Sex Marriage bill was passed a couple of weeks ago but I wrote most of this on the day of the vote but for some reason didn’t post it – so here it is!

Will this vote see the end of Free Speech. It should concern any lover of Democracy, that the freedom to disagree with the Same-Sex legislation will end. I believe it will see the beginning of a Witch-Hunt to find and root out ‘deniers’ of Same-Sex Marriage.

Stonewall and other ideological lobby groups will over time entrap unsuspecting believers (Christians)  into saying something that will force a prosecution. This is already happening. Stonewall, I suggest, will not rest until everyone sees Homosexual & Lesbian practice and therefore Same-Sex Marriage as normal.

I haven’t heard or read (please correct me) about any protection for individuals in the work place or any other place for that matter that disagrees or believes that not only same-sex marriages but homosexuality & lesbianism is sinful according to the Bible. There looks to be only protection for Individual Ministers & Religious Organisations (if it happens) but nothing for the ordinary individual Christian, e.g. in the workplace. Not just Christians, but anyone that agrees with the phrase ”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (attributed to Voltaire) ought to be concerned. I’ll certainly be writing to my MP (and PM) again about this.

With Martin Luther then we must surely say:

“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”

Where this leaves the Bible in all this will be interesting to see because the Bible teaches the very opposite of what could soon be enshrined in UK Law.

Will the Bible be outlawed? Will some passages of the Bible be outlawed and will those that believe those passages and indeed all the Bible be outlawed?

Where to now? The Bill now passes through to the House of Lords and to further scrutiny by Parliament  There is then – I think – a third reading before it becomes law. The Bill will come under intense critical reading as it moves through the Parliamentary process.  Whether this will be the opportunity to build into legislation protection for those that disagree I can’t say. But to not prosecute ‘deniers’ raises the question about what it was all about in the first place. It seems to me prosecutions will follow.

I do not believe the majority are for this change - but what is more likely to be true is that the majority just can’t be bothered. Apathy.

There is another possible alternative for the Church to think about. Go here to read about it – but basically the Church itself re-defines marriage and calls it Holy Matrimony.

I only heard snippets from the speeches but was struck that some MP’s said or at least implied something like: ‘I don’t believe God would be against same-sex marriage’ or ‘a God of love would not allow same-sex couples in loving relationships to be barred from marriage’ or similar sentiments. But how can anyone presume to speak for God when He has already spoken plainly in His Word the Bible.

Why anyone would want to claim the name of Christian or follower of Jesus and yet completely ignore what He has to say can only be explained by the words of the Apostle Paul as follows:

2 Timothy 3:1-9

1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.

2 Timothy 4:3, 8 & 9

New International Version (NIV)
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.

8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Read Full Post »

John MacArthur Series on Isaiah 53 – brief Comments & Observations

I’ve been quite critical of John MacArthur and his hermeneutic as I perceive taught by the Masters Seminary but haven’t really listened to much of his preaching. To put that right I have listened to his series on Isaiah 53 in the car as I travel to and from work. There has been no note-taking so what follows is made up of what came across to be the main thrust of the ministry – how it came over.

MacArthur is a really good speaker and although I’ve not been that impressed by the overall content he nevertheless has a voice that is easy on the ear, his voice or tone, or pitch doesn’t assault my senses and is very clear and well articulated. The recording is good quality so all in all it’s really not a struggle to listen.

He hasn’t said anything much I hadn’t heard before but I was looking to hear of Christ and the Gospel. This is just a statement of fact as I have been a Christian since 1979. I’ve heard a lot of sermons! I was surprised, maybe I shouldn’t have been, how quickly he got into the nation of Israel. He ran out of time on one sermon, not finishing he decided to come back to it the next time. I know this because we were told on the following message. So with time enough to finish that section of Isaiah 53, what does he do but launch into an extended sermon on Israel and its repentance as a nation leaving the verse I thought he was coming back to for a few minutes at the end. I do not know John MacArthur, have never met him, never spoken to him, never had contact with him in any way other than through these messages – and I think one or two of his books. So, my comments are purely based on what I hear, where it seems to me his passion lies. His sermon is therefore, as it were, his shop window.

The next Sunday (next message that is) a lot of visitors were in for the graduation (so we were told) and so he quickly did a review of the previous weeks. This was fair enough so people could pick up the series as he was by now well into it. John made statement here that I fail to understand. He said the Old Testament is full of Jesus where he could be found. It was a qualified statement but couched in inclusive language because Jesus can actually be found everywhere. He doesn’t find Jesus for example in the Song of Solomon because he says so in his Study Bible. I though his qualification was a little disingenuous.

Sadly what I’ve found to be seriously lacking in this series is little if any mention of the Grace of God. I am driving so might have lost concentration on the sermon for a minute but cannot recall any mention of Grace. Doesn’t the Apostle Paul call it the Gospel of the Grace of God. And amazingly there has been no mention of the Love of God. Surely when considering such a passage of scripture such as Isaiah 53 it would have been more than appropriate to quote John 3:16 ‘God SO loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes ion Him should not perish but have eternal life’. Another verse that should have been mentioned was in Acts 8 where Philip beginning with that very scripture preached Christ. For Philip then, the primary meaning of the passage is Jesus Christ. I found MacArthur’s' view that the primary meaning of Isaiah 53 was the final restoration and repentance of Israel something that even a premillennial friend of mine thought was a bit weird.

His preaching is very light on application. There is no application to struggling believers, doubting believers, sinning believers.

I found the ministry to be full of the sufferings of Christ but little or nothing on why those sufferings were necessary. This is astonishing. In one place he gives a string of words and phrases from the passage about Christ being bruised, beaten, crushed, afflicted and how it’s all about judgement and wrath but doesn’t even mention how this demonstrates the love of God for poor lost sinners, and I include Christians here. I am really surprised  shocked even. I couldn’t possibly condone a book about preaching the Gospel by John MacArthur – I only wish it were possible. MacArthur is greatly admired as a preacher but I just don’t get it – and I’m really sorry. I’ve listened to this series for about two weeks now each day as I travel in the car. I remember listening to Michael Horton on Law & Gospel and had to just sit in the car when I reached work in tears thankful for The Lord Jesus and what He has done for this poor undeserving sinner. Not so with this. It’s just so factual and rigid. Perhaps someone could explain to me based on this series what it is I’m missing. Am I the only person in the evangelical world that doesn’t get it – I would like to know.

I’m listening to this because I said I would. But just to remind you, I am only going on his preaching in this series – his shop window. It’s what I see and frankly I’m less than impressed.

I’ve listened to the series now and I have to admit the last one was the best of the series. He used the term God’s ‘Marvelous Grace’ and then used the word Grace again. It took to the end of the series to mention the Grace of God.

As a check I thought it might be a good idea to listen to someone else on this passage. Stuart Olyott seemed like a good idea so I downloaded the three messages on Isaiah 53 by Stuart. To be perfectly honest there was some crossover of things said but there just seemed to be a different emphasis, a wholly different feel to the ministry – if I can put it like that. On reflection it was maybe unfair of me to expect John MacArthur to be anything other than consistent with his own theology. But I reckon if he left out his references to Israel and didn’t constantly repeat himself (I know that can be a good thing) it would have taken him three, maybe four sermons, instead of ten to say the same thing. What Stuart did especially in his third sermon on Isaiah 53 was apply it. The application was very encouraging to poor struggling believers. Not every Christian is marching across the world like a colossus.  Some Christians are really struggling with their own sin, their backsliding of heart and a constant sense of failure. What this passage tells every Christian is that regardless of their own struggles and constant failures Jesus Christ has died for them! Even these poor examples, and I count myself as one of them, Jesus Christ died for and will bring them through for His own glory and praise. What an encouragement to once again seek this Saviour afresh and to serve Him for the rest of our days in whatever way He chooses. And then one day He will bring me, even me to be with Him in heaven. Now that’s the Gospel of the Grace of God to undeserving sinners.

If you see yourself to be one – a poor undeserving sinner. Then Jesus tells you, yes even you, to come to Him and receive from Him the gift of eternal life because He and only He has died and risen for sinners. Jesus says in Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Go here and scroll down the page to find sermons by Stuart Olyott.

 

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 »

Favourite Bible Verses

Chatting with a friend last night I referred to what I thought was one of the most amazing verses in the Bible. This set me thinking about putting a few thoughts on various bible verses into regular blog posts. So I trust what is planned on being regular snippets will be a blessing.

So to kick of the series my first verse is Revelation 1: 17 & 18 (Yeh, I know, that’s two verses)

Revelation 1:17-18 (ESV)

¹⁷ When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, ¹⁸ and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.

I wish I could draw this scene because it illustrates in a really powerful way the love, care & grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Here’s the context:

John has been privileged to be given a vision of the Glory of Christ. Here is this mighty, almighty being, ruler of the universe and creator. And John reacts rightly before the Majesty of Jesus by falling down before Him as though dead. Now here’s the thing, and it’s why it’s important to read the Bible carefully and not hurry past passages all the time. It’s why we should think about what some of these verses are saying else we can miss so much.

Jesus touches John. ‘But he laid his right hand on me’ To do that Jesus would have had to stoop down in order to reach John. This is a supreme act of condescension. This is the risen Lord of Glory, maker of heaven and earth leaning down to say ‘Fear not’ to a sinner.

This is the Grace of our Lord. What a Saviour! Such Love, such Grace, such Tenderness. And yet such Glory, such Majesty, such Power. This is Jesus, the God Man, and there is none like Him. Praise God!

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 »

Keeping the 10 Commandments – Part 2

Many people have the (mistaken) idea the 10 Commandments is a list that can be ticked in order to feel good. And let’s be honest, I suspect only a small minority would have any real inkling as to the commandments that relate to God. They all do of course, but the first four specifically relate to God. And so the majority completely miss the purpose of the law of God. It’s only the free Grace of God that permits any of us to see the real purpose of the law.

Reformed theology mostly puts forward three uses of the law. These are:

1) The law serves as a means to restrain sin.

2) The law shows people their sin and points them to Christ.

3) This third use of the law is for those who trust in Christ as a standard of living, though still driven to Christ for help to live Godly lives.

A decent summary of the three uses can be found at The Reformed Reader. A different or amended view, that I came across via Monergism, by Bill Baldwin can be found here. I also came across an article by Greg Bahnsen that readers may find helpful but without subscribing to his view of Theonomy. And so to:

The law that Points to Christ – the second use

For now then, let’s concentrate on the work of the law that convicts of sin – the second use – as it’s this one that’s probably misunderstood the most. I’ll maybe try to come back to the other two later.

The Law must point outside of ourselves, so that it’s an objective standard, and not some inner feeling. Feelings may come into it but that cannot be the primary mover.

The verse that clearly portrays this aspect of the law is found in Gal. 3:23-24

²³ But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed.

²⁴ Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The word Tutor (above in Bold), Guardian or Schoolmaster, as some other translations have it, refers to the work of a slave ‘responsible for a child’s training, especially for pointing out and punishing misbehavior. Like a guardian, the law pointed out sin and punished it’. (From Reformation Study Bible – Resources for Gal 3:24 Bible Gateway) As the Apostle Paul says in Romans 3:19 ^’Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

And this is exactly our position by nature before God. And make no mistake, it’s an act of boundless mercy for God to make us aware of the fact. Many, most it seems, carry on as if there is no God, no Judgement and no Lawgiver to whom we are accountable.

If you are overwhelmed with the profound sense that ‘something is wrong’ inside, with you, then it’s not counselling you need to overcome feelings of guilt, but a Saviour, a Rescuer to whom you must flee in Faith & Repentance. The feelings you may have point to the FACT that you like the rest of humanity are lawbreakers. This is true whether you feel it or not. So having tears and a sense of unworthiness might be good but they will not save you. Only a person can do that.

We should also be aware that the law is an expression of the Holy & Righteous Character of God and because of this He has the right to demand of His creatures perfect compliance with that law. This isn’t to do with the ‘compliant’ child because none of us are compliantbut are in fact lawbreakers - every last one of us. As God, He rightfully demands perfection of His creatures. ‘Nobody is perfect’ I hear you cry. And that is the point. Nobody is perfect – except Jesus. And so as James says: ‘For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it’ James 2:10.

Read the Sermon on the Mount in Mathew chapters 5 – 7 (another part of the Bible that people take as a ‘rule for living’ that without Christ is pure law) for an exposition of the 10 Commandments and you will find that it’s not just about an outward morality – many manage that to some extent – but goes to the very fibre of our being to explore motives and the working of the inner life that only God sees! As John says in 1 John 1:8 ‘If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us‘. And verse 10 ‘If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

So then, if we say we have just one tiny sin we have condemned ourselves as lawbreakers and under the wrath of almighty God. It will do no good to compare your performance with others – rapist, murderers and the like. The uncomfortable truth is that we all fall under the condemnation of the law of God. None of us keep the 10 Commandments.

Now here’s the Good News

Unless the above has been taken to heart, that is, the realisation your own righteousness might just as well be filthy rags in the sight of God, the Good News will not be good news. The Self Righteous see no need of ‘Good News’. They see no need of a Saviour.  It’s a delusion to think keeping part of the law – any part – will earn any favour with God.

The Law points towards another – not us. Salvation must come from outside ourselves. We simply do not have the resources to save ourselves either in terms of what we do or what we are. But God in Christ provides all we need. We need righteousness. We have none. God provides it in Christ.

Sin Must be dealt with

Sin however, must be dealt with. God cannot simply right off the debt. Someone must pay. And this is what God does through the Cross of Christ. The Cross is not a lesson in passive suffering, an example for us to follow. No. The Cross is where Jesus bore the punishment for sinners. It’s what theologians call Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

And so as another verse says: Romans 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. And I trust by now the following verses will have real eternal significance – even for you!

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it–
Rom 3:22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction:
Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
Rom 3:24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Rom 3:25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
Rom 3:26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

I said far more than I intended and there are probably many questions in your mind. I have no doubt left things out but in closing 3 simple truths:

1. God demands you keep His Law – this is impossible! You are a sinner under the wrath of God.

2. Jesus has kept the Law.

3. You need to call upon Jesus for Salvation – He is able to Save! He died on the Cross but Rose from the dead and is a living Saviour!

Related articles

• The Law/Gospel Distinction: A Staple in Reformed Theology (reformedreader.wordpress.com)

Read Full Post »

Keeping the 10 Commandments – Part 1

Diving right into this one – who keeps the 10 Commandments? Do you? Do I? Does anyone you know keep them? Would you like to keep them? Do you try to keep them? Do you think we ought to keep them?

First off we ought to list them because I regularly come across statistics and comments that say even many Christians can’t say all 10.

So we all know what they are here’s a little revision for us all. The relevant passage in the Bible is in Exodus ch 20 verses 1 – 17 :

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

1. You shall have no other gods before me.
   
2. You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those wholove Me and keep My commandments.
   
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.
   
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.
   
5. Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
   
6. You shall not murder.
   
7. You shall not commit adultery.
   
8. You shall not steal.
   
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
   
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

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 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 »