You might think it strange for about 250 ministers, many of them quite senior (that is, old) to hear ten sermons or lectures about the gospel at the annual Leicester Ministers’ conference (otherwise known as the ‘Banner of Truth’ conference). Isn’t the gospel something basic? Should ministers of all people need to be reminded of the gospel?
Well yes – we do, and all Christians need to be reminded all the time of the gospel, so fundamental is its influence on the Christian life.
We heard from Sinclair Ferguson on the power of the gospel (Romans 3:21-26 – those wonderful words justification, propitiation and redemption) and then its logic (the chain of assurances Paul gives in Romans 8:31-38). He also spoke of the gospel’s mystery – from Romans 16:25-27.
Warren Peel, who has taken on the pastorate from his father in law Ted Donnelly in Belfast, spoke excellently on what the gospel means for us – freedom from a guilty conscience and freedom from a performance mindset. He spoke again on the gospel as the comfort and joy of the church – the gospel purifies our motives, cures our distrust, satisfies our desires and humbles our hearts.
Jonathan Watson spoke on the matter of life and death that the gospel is for the world, his text being Paul’s stated determination that his life meant nothing to him if he could not live to preach the gospel (Acts 20:28).
Jeremy Walker, from Crawley, spoke of the way the gospel determines our character and provides us with our calling as preachers.
Many particularly enjoyed Michael Reeves, head of theology for UCCF, who spoke on the missionary heart of God (John 20:19-23) and then gave an excellent talk on Augustine, highlighting his conversion and the way that that demonstrated the gospel.
It was a great few days. The ministry was edifying, the fellowship was refreshing, and it was good to be reminded in so many different ways of how great is the gospel of our glorious God.
Thursday, 25 April 2013
Saturday, 13 April 2013
The Casual Christian
This article of mine appeared in 'The Evangelical Magazine' for December 2012 and I think has appeared in one or two other places.
THE CASUAL CHRISTIAN
To be casual today is usually regarded as a good thing; it is cool. To be ‘non-casual’ (stiff? formal? intense?) is not good. You need to chill.
One of the first books I read as a Christian was The Best That I Can Be by J. Oswald Sanders. On the front cover is a photo of Lilian Board, the ‘Jessica Ennis’ of the late 1960s, the ‘golden girl’ of British athletics at that time who died of cancer in 1970 at the age of twenty-two. Eyes closed, head back, she is straining every fibre to win the race.
The book is aimed at helping Christians to persevere and grow in grace. On the back cover the first sentence reads: ‘The casual Christian should read this book with caution’. The book’s title, the photo of the athlete (anything but casual as she strives to win) and the assumption in the introduction that every Christian will ‘yearn to know Christ better and serve Him more worthily’, all convey a message that is a far cry from what is implied in the word ‘casual’. Spiritual life and growth, it is assumed, do not sit happily with ‘casualness’. J.I. Packer once coined the apt title Laid Back Religion for a book on this theme.
Our culture is casual; we are children of our age; it is inevitable that we reflect it to some extent. Is casualness, however, always a good thing? Should not the fact that our culture is casual put us on the alert to casualness within the church? May it, indeed, be simply a form of worldliness?
Definitions
‘Casual’ has a range of meanings. In the New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) the primary definition of ‘casual’ is ‘relaxed or unconcerned…made or done without much thought or premeditation…done or acting without sufficient care or thoroughness’. One might add, lacking precision or attention to detail. Another meaning is: ‘without formality of style, manner, or procedure, in particular…: of a social event - not characterised by social conventions…relaxed and friendly’. Note the word ‘relaxed’ in both definitions. Now it may well be a good thing to be relaxed and friendly, but not so good to do things without sufficient care or thoroughness.
What does it mean though if church worship is commended as ‘casual’? Probably it means informal, not ‘stiff’ or ‘buttoned-up’. It is perilously easy however for other things to slip in under cover of being ‘casual’.
So when we use ‘casual’ or ‘casualness’ remember the range of meanings. I am suggesting that apart from obvious things like being friendly, which has little to do really with being casual, there is no virtue in a Christian or a church seeking to be ‘casual’. It is the attitude of mind that is important. Things matter; the basic attitude of ‘casualness’ is that things that are considered to be of less importance (at least), do not matter.
Let’s look at what evangelical casualness looks like, some possible causes, and some responses to it.
Casual Christianity
Sunday services:
· the style or manner of leading;
· indifference to traditional order and content of services. I am not necessarily advocating the traditional, merely wondering if enough thought is being given to why we are departing from it and to what will replace it;
· failure to distinguish in importance between elements of the service – for example the reading of the Word, and a welcome to visitors;
· too little acknowledgement that we are meeting in God’s presence and have come to worship him;
· the way we dress (which is not the central issue though an obvious cultural trend).
General trends:
· indifference to protocol;
· dislike of anything ‘formal’.
Intellectual casualness:
· a resistance to precision in doctrine. Sometimes there are good intentions behind this, such as evangelical unity; but is there not the danger of a ‘details don’t matter’ attitude?
Possible Causes
Cultural:
(i) Postmodernism has left a legacy of suspicion about Truth – it does not exist or it cannot be found. Why bother then, to make much effort to seek it or define it? To the extent that this (unconsciously) affects Christians, we will cease to make much effort to be precise in doctrine.
(ii) We like to be ‘inclusive’ and dislike boundaries. As, in the way we dress, we do not distinguish much between a football match and going to church, so (more importantly) we make no distinction in the attitudes of mind we should adopt. We come to be stimulated, to receive rather than to give. We like to be ourselves, and not fit in to someone else’s programme. Yet biblical holiness consists in maintaining boundaries – between Creator and creature (the fundamental one – we bow in his presence), male and female, believer and unbeliever, clean and unclean (Ezek. 44:23). Believers are ‘set apart’ to God; we are to separate ourselves (in the right sense) from the world (2 Cor 6:15 -7:1).
Theological:
(i) One suspects that if anything would lead to casualness in worship, doctrine and conduct, it is a diminished view of God. Is it possible that the concept of a gracious God may have slipped into that of a casual God? But nowhere in the Bible is God casual!
(ii) There is a popular strand of evangelicalism that tells us we are no more worshipping on Sunday than when we play cricket or enjoy a BBQ on the beach. If 24/7 worship is all there is to be said about worship, it makes everything the same. Services can be casual – why not?
(iii) It is becoming increasingly common for Sunday to be regarded as not special. The fourth commandment we are told is not binding on Christians. As this takes hold it is not surprising that we are casual about the Lord’s Day.
(iv) There is a tendency to treat matters of form, order and convention, which may be secondary, as if they were unimportant, which is not at all the same thing. Forms of worship always have a theology behind them. Contempt for form usually betrays ignorance of this theology and of the way our own forms reflect a (usually worse) theology.
Responses to ‘casualness creep’
First, a recovery of the sense of the greatness of God. When Moses meets with God he is told to take off his shoes; he hides his face and is afraid to look at God (Exod 3:6). Pure spiritual beings hide their faces and Isaiah is stripped bare as God reveals himself as the thrice holy (Isaiah 6:1-5). Peter asks Jesus to depart from him, for he, like Isaiah, is exposed to himself as God’s glory is revealed to him (Luke 5:8); John falls down as one dead (Revelation 1:17). To each of these men God is gracious, amazingly so, but the idea of ‘casual’ fits nowhere.
Second, a conviction that Christian worship is the hardest thing a sinful man or woman can attempt. Assuming we are meeting to worship God (and I suspect most Christians really believe that this is why they are in church) let us be clear that spiritual worship is not easy. It is not something that can be attempted without preparation, thought and concentration on God, his Word and spiritual things. If that is compatible with a casual attitude, so be it, but I doubt it. As for the forms of what we do, they may be secondary, but they are not unimportant. Subject to God’s Word, they should be determined by what is appropriate to what we are doing.
Third, a conviction that living and growing as a Christian is a struggle. We read of words like ‘toil’ and ‘struggle’ (Col 1:29; 1Tim 4:10) and ‘make every effort’ (Eph 4:3); of ‘pressing on’ (Phil 3:12-14), ‘pursuing’ and ‘fighting’ (1 Tim. 6:11,12; cf Heb 12:14), ‘running’ and ‘boxing’ and ‘pummeling the body’ (1 Cor 9:26-7). Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our public worship. Our God is worthy of infinitely more, and certainly no less.
THE CASUAL CHRISTIAN
To be casual today is usually regarded as a good thing; it is cool. To be ‘non-casual’ (stiff? formal? intense?) is not good. You need to chill.
One of the first books I read as a Christian was The Best That I Can Be by J. Oswald Sanders. On the front cover is a photo of Lilian Board, the ‘Jessica Ennis’ of the late 1960s, the ‘golden girl’ of British athletics at that time who died of cancer in 1970 at the age of twenty-two. Eyes closed, head back, she is straining every fibre to win the race.
The book is aimed at helping Christians to persevere and grow in grace. On the back cover the first sentence reads: ‘The casual Christian should read this book with caution’. The book’s title, the photo of the athlete (anything but casual as she strives to win) and the assumption in the introduction that every Christian will ‘yearn to know Christ better and serve Him more worthily’, all convey a message that is a far cry from what is implied in the word ‘casual’. Spiritual life and growth, it is assumed, do not sit happily with ‘casualness’. J.I. Packer once coined the apt title Laid Back Religion for a book on this theme.
Our culture is casual; we are children of our age; it is inevitable that we reflect it to some extent. Is casualness, however, always a good thing? Should not the fact that our culture is casual put us on the alert to casualness within the church? May it, indeed, be simply a form of worldliness?
Definitions
‘Casual’ has a range of meanings. In the New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) the primary definition of ‘casual’ is ‘relaxed or unconcerned…made or done without much thought or premeditation…done or acting without sufficient care or thoroughness’. One might add, lacking precision or attention to detail. Another meaning is: ‘without formality of style, manner, or procedure, in particular…: of a social event - not characterised by social conventions…relaxed and friendly’. Note the word ‘relaxed’ in both definitions. Now it may well be a good thing to be relaxed and friendly, but not so good to do things without sufficient care or thoroughness.
What does it mean though if church worship is commended as ‘casual’? Probably it means informal, not ‘stiff’ or ‘buttoned-up’. It is perilously easy however for other things to slip in under cover of being ‘casual’.
So when we use ‘casual’ or ‘casualness’ remember the range of meanings. I am suggesting that apart from obvious things like being friendly, which has little to do really with being casual, there is no virtue in a Christian or a church seeking to be ‘casual’. It is the attitude of mind that is important. Things matter; the basic attitude of ‘casualness’ is that things that are considered to be of less importance (at least), do not matter.
Let’s look at what evangelical casualness looks like, some possible causes, and some responses to it.
Casual Christianity
Sunday services:
· the style or manner of leading;
· indifference to traditional order and content of services. I am not necessarily advocating the traditional, merely wondering if enough thought is being given to why we are departing from it and to what will replace it;
· failure to distinguish in importance between elements of the service – for example the reading of the Word, and a welcome to visitors;
· too little acknowledgement that we are meeting in God’s presence and have come to worship him;
· the way we dress (which is not the central issue though an obvious cultural trend).
General trends:
· indifference to protocol;
· dislike of anything ‘formal’.
Intellectual casualness:
· a resistance to precision in doctrine. Sometimes there are good intentions behind this, such as evangelical unity; but is there not the danger of a ‘details don’t matter’ attitude?
Possible Causes
Cultural:
(i) Postmodernism has left a legacy of suspicion about Truth – it does not exist or it cannot be found. Why bother then, to make much effort to seek it or define it? To the extent that this (unconsciously) affects Christians, we will cease to make much effort to be precise in doctrine.
(ii) We like to be ‘inclusive’ and dislike boundaries. As, in the way we dress, we do not distinguish much between a football match and going to church, so (more importantly) we make no distinction in the attitudes of mind we should adopt. We come to be stimulated, to receive rather than to give. We like to be ourselves, and not fit in to someone else’s programme. Yet biblical holiness consists in maintaining boundaries – between Creator and creature (the fundamental one – we bow in his presence), male and female, believer and unbeliever, clean and unclean (Ezek. 44:23). Believers are ‘set apart’ to God; we are to separate ourselves (in the right sense) from the world (2 Cor 6:15 -7:1).
Theological:
(i) One suspects that if anything would lead to casualness in worship, doctrine and conduct, it is a diminished view of God. Is it possible that the concept of a gracious God may have slipped into that of a casual God? But nowhere in the Bible is God casual!
(ii) There is a popular strand of evangelicalism that tells us we are no more worshipping on Sunday than when we play cricket or enjoy a BBQ on the beach. If 24/7 worship is all there is to be said about worship, it makes everything the same. Services can be casual – why not?
(iii) It is becoming increasingly common for Sunday to be regarded as not special. The fourth commandment we are told is not binding on Christians. As this takes hold it is not surprising that we are casual about the Lord’s Day.
(iv) There is a tendency to treat matters of form, order and convention, which may be secondary, as if they were unimportant, which is not at all the same thing. Forms of worship always have a theology behind them. Contempt for form usually betrays ignorance of this theology and of the way our own forms reflect a (usually worse) theology.
Responses to ‘casualness creep’
First, a recovery of the sense of the greatness of God. When Moses meets with God he is told to take off his shoes; he hides his face and is afraid to look at God (Exod 3:6). Pure spiritual beings hide their faces and Isaiah is stripped bare as God reveals himself as the thrice holy (Isaiah 6:1-5). Peter asks Jesus to depart from him, for he, like Isaiah, is exposed to himself as God’s glory is revealed to him (Luke 5:8); John falls down as one dead (Revelation 1:17). To each of these men God is gracious, amazingly so, but the idea of ‘casual’ fits nowhere.
Second, a conviction that Christian worship is the hardest thing a sinful man or woman can attempt. Assuming we are meeting to worship God (and I suspect most Christians really believe that this is why they are in church) let us be clear that spiritual worship is not easy. It is not something that can be attempted without preparation, thought and concentration on God, his Word and spiritual things. If that is compatible with a casual attitude, so be it, but I doubt it. As for the forms of what we do, they may be secondary, but they are not unimportant. Subject to God’s Word, they should be determined by what is appropriate to what we are doing.
Third, a conviction that living and growing as a Christian is a struggle. We read of words like ‘toil’ and ‘struggle’ (Col 1:29; 1Tim 4:10) and ‘make every effort’ (Eph 4:3); of ‘pressing on’ (Phil 3:12-14), ‘pursuing’ and ‘fighting’ (1 Tim. 6:11,12; cf Heb 12:14), ‘running’ and ‘boxing’ and ‘pummeling the body’ (1 Cor 9:26-7). Striving, not casualness, should be the keynote of our lives and of our public worship. Our God is worthy of infinitely more, and certainly no less.
Monday, 18 March 2013
Spot the Welshman
This will makes sense only to those who realise that in the final match of the Six Nations Rugby Union championship last Saturday Wales hammered England 30-3.
Saturday, 16 March 2013
Roger Williams at the Evangelical Library
If you are interested in the roots of religious and civil liberties and the theological arguments that surrounded them in the seventeenth century, then Roger Williams is essential and very good company.
I shall be endeavouring to give a brief introduction to him on Monday 18th March at the Evangelical Library at 1.00 pm. No charge; it would be good to see you there if you can make it.
Here is a brief extract from what I shall probably say.
'Remember that it was no part of the general Puritan vision to separate from the Church of England. Winthrop and those with him, unlike the separatist Pilgrim Fathers of the Mayflower who had settled further south in Plymouth a decade earlier, strongly desired to remain attached to their nation and church, though a purified church. Indeed on leaving old England, Winthrop had been at pains to assure those he was leaving that he was no separatist. The reasons for leaving England were not merely political or economic, nor even to escape religious persecution and seek freedom. There was a strong positive sense of mission, expressed for example in Winthrop’s famous sermon A Modell of Christian Charity written and preached on the Arbella . This sermon sets out, according to Francis Bremer (The Puritan Experiment p 90) many of the key elements of the Puritan view of society – awareness of community and individual interdependence, awareness of the various callings of men, and a sense of mission. More significantly for our purposes, it sets out the strong sense of New England being a new Israel and the conviction of a commission from God and a covenant with God that the settlers had.
'Roger Williams was to profoundly challenge the Puritan status quo on just these issues: that any nation could be in the same place in relation to God as Israel had been; and that a nation could be in covenant with God. This was the great ideological and theological cleavage that divided Williams from Winthrop and the settlers in Massachusetts. It was a difference greater than eight months (i.e between Winthrop and Williams)in arriving in the new world; a difference greater than 3,000 miles across the Atlantic. It was the difference between the old and modern worlds'.
Leading Worship
What principles should direct our leading of worship?
There are many good books dealing with this (and I still like Robert Rayburn's 'Come let us worship', Baker 1980, as well as any). Here are some basic guidelines I put down recently as a discussion starter for some men in my congregation who sometimes lead worship, either in our church or elsewhere.
Some key principles
What is worship?
Rendering to God the glory, honour and submission that are his due. Pss 29:2; 95:6,7.
How is it to be done?
With reverence and awe – Heb 12:28. We come to God as he has revealed himself in the person and work of Christ. We worship in the power of the Holy Spirit and in faith: ‘For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father’ (Eph 2:18). Worship is above all a spiritual activity.
What directs our worship?
The Bible. Apart from incidentals and the ‘circumstances’ of worship (eg whether we use chairs of pews, the times of our services) we should only do what Scripture commands. This is called the Regulative principle and has been basic to Reformed worship since the 16th C. It is an expression of the seriousness with which Reformed Christians take (i) worship, (ii) the sufficiency of Scripture, (iii) human ignorance of what pleases God unless he tells us and (iv) the need to ensure that so far as possible we do not offend the consciences of worshippers by imposing on them something which cannot be justified by God’s authority.
This is different from Anglican or Lutheran churches whose tradition has been that whatever is not forbidden is allowed.
In practice this has meant that Reformed worship is characterised by simplicity and reverence, using as little outward adornment or sensory stimulus as possible, in an attempt to do some justice to the spirituality, character and greatness of the God whom we approach, who seeks to be known by his Word, and to worship, as Jesus teaches, in spirit /Spirit and in truth.
Such worship will usually consist of (i) Scripture reading and preaching; (ii) prayer; (iii) the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; (iv) the sacraments; (v) in some churches, the offering. The Word is central. The Bible should be read, preached, prayed, sung and (in the sacraments) seen.
How we worship God is hugely important. In his tract On the Necessity of Reforming the Church John Calvin in 1543 stated that the two defining elements of Christianity were ‘a knowledge, first, of the right way to worship God; and secondly of the source from which salvation is to be sought.’ How we worship God will tell people a great deal about who he is and what we think of him.
The Lord has promised to be where two or three of his people meet in his name (Matt 18:15-20). If the Lord is graciously present, then that is the most important thing about our meetings. No-one should be willing to be easily absent from such a gathering. As we lead in worship it is our task to lead people into the awareness and experience of this presence of God and to enable them to offer to God what is his due – true worship.
Getting practical
What are you aiming at in leading a service of worship?
How do you dress?
How do you order the service?
The ‘dialogue’ principle – God addresses us, we respond.
How do you begin?
How do you choose the readings?
What should the content of the times of prayer be?
Adoration
Thanksgiving
Confession
Assurance of forgiveness
Intercession
Petition
How do you choose hymns? What factors influence you?
How do you choose each hymn for different parts of the service?
How much talking should you do?
What principles guide you in preparing a children’s talk?
What about getting others to take part in the service?
How will you close the service?
There are many good books dealing with this (and I still like Robert Rayburn's 'Come let us worship', Baker 1980, as well as any). Here are some basic guidelines I put down recently as a discussion starter for some men in my congregation who sometimes lead worship, either in our church or elsewhere.
Some key principles
What is worship?
Rendering to God the glory, honour and submission that are his due. Pss 29:2; 95:6,7.
How is it to be done?
With reverence and awe – Heb 12:28. We come to God as he has revealed himself in the person and work of Christ. We worship in the power of the Holy Spirit and in faith: ‘For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father’ (Eph 2:18). Worship is above all a spiritual activity.
What directs our worship?
The Bible. Apart from incidentals and the ‘circumstances’ of worship (eg whether we use chairs of pews, the times of our services) we should only do what Scripture commands. This is called the Regulative principle and has been basic to Reformed worship since the 16th C. It is an expression of the seriousness with which Reformed Christians take (i) worship, (ii) the sufficiency of Scripture, (iii) human ignorance of what pleases God unless he tells us and (iv) the need to ensure that so far as possible we do not offend the consciences of worshippers by imposing on them something which cannot be justified by God’s authority.
This is different from Anglican or Lutheran churches whose tradition has been that whatever is not forbidden is allowed.
In practice this has meant that Reformed worship is characterised by simplicity and reverence, using as little outward adornment or sensory stimulus as possible, in an attempt to do some justice to the spirituality, character and greatness of the God whom we approach, who seeks to be known by his Word, and to worship, as Jesus teaches, in spirit /Spirit and in truth.
Such worship will usually consist of (i) Scripture reading and preaching; (ii) prayer; (iii) the singing of psalms, hymns and spiritual songs; (iv) the sacraments; (v) in some churches, the offering. The Word is central. The Bible should be read, preached, prayed, sung and (in the sacraments) seen.
How we worship God is hugely important. In his tract On the Necessity of Reforming the Church John Calvin in 1543 stated that the two defining elements of Christianity were ‘a knowledge, first, of the right way to worship God; and secondly of the source from which salvation is to be sought.’ How we worship God will tell people a great deal about who he is and what we think of him.
The Lord has promised to be where two or three of his people meet in his name (Matt 18:15-20). If the Lord is graciously present, then that is the most important thing about our meetings. No-one should be willing to be easily absent from such a gathering. As we lead in worship it is our task to lead people into the awareness and experience of this presence of God and to enable them to offer to God what is his due – true worship.
Getting practical
What are you aiming at in leading a service of worship?
How do you dress?
How do you order the service?
The ‘dialogue’ principle – God addresses us, we respond.
How do you begin?
How do you choose the readings?
What should the content of the times of prayer be?
Adoration
Thanksgiving
Confession
Assurance of forgiveness
Intercession
Petition
How do you choose hymns? What factors influence you?
How do you choose each hymn for different parts of the service?
How much talking should you do?
What principles guide you in preparing a children’s talk?
What about getting others to take part in the service?
How will you close the service?
Sunday, 10 March 2013
Lloyd-Jones and Roman Catholicism
The media's attitude to Roman Catholicism is bizarre. One minute there is a 'feeding frenzy' as some cardinal admits to 'inappropriate advances' to young priests (they can't condemn anything homosexual now, of course - it has to be the manner in which the 'advances' were made). The next moment, it is fawning over the Vatican as if it were a favourite maiden aunt. When Alan Little, the 'special correspondent' of the British Broadcasting Corporation pronounces with a straight face that the papacy is in direct line to the apostle Peter, one wonders where the journalistic objectivity of that once august said Corporation has gone.
It was therefore refreshing recently to come across some robust common sense on Roman Catholicism. Having been stimulated by a discussion at the Westminster Fellowship last week I discovered at home a photocopy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' sermon on Roman Catholicism, preached on Sunday morning, 29th January 1961, and published in the Westminster Record in May 1963. It was part of his series on Ephesians 6:10-13, on the subject 'the wiles of the devil', specifically heresies. For some reason it does not appear in the Banner of Truth Ephesians series, which is a shame.
In his typical methodical fashion, Dr Lloyd-Jones makes the following points:
1. He is alarmed by the rapprochement that some Protestants seem to be envisaging with Roman Catholicism.
2. He does not believe a 'Protestant Society' of any sort is the answer, but rather a straightforward preaching of Christian Truth and the great Reformed doctrines.
3.The increase in RCism is due to a 'weak and flabby Protestantism that does not know what it believes'.
4. He is not talking about individuals - you can be a Christian and RC - but in spite of the system, not because of it.
5. RCism is 'the devil's greatest masterpiece'.
6. Certainly RCism believes in many important Scriptural truths, but adds with a 'damnable plus' things which are utterly unscriptural.
7. She has many guises, depending on the country she is in.
8. Passages relating to the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2) , the beast from the earth in Revelation 13 and the 'great whore' of Revelation 17, apply to RCism.
9. Three main headings describe how she has brought unrighteous deception into the church:
(i) she has introduced idolatry and superstition (relics etc).
(ii) her whole system comes between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ. (a)No salvation outside this church. She claims our totalitarian allegiance. (b) The Pope is a manifestation of the man of lawlessness - he speaks as God (2 Thess 2). (c) Also the priests are a class apart - no salvation without them. (d) The Virgin Mary is more important than Jesus Christ in many representations of Catholic teaching and art. (e)The saints and their 'merit' imply that the merit of Jesus in insufficient.
(iii) she not only robs Christ of his glory but robs his salvation of its sufficiency. They add human works to justification. The rites are essential. No assurance of salvation. Purgatory.
10. RCism has not changed - she boasts of not changing.[This may need to be augmented after Vatican II but not retracted - Rome has changed in ways which embrace what we might call postmodernism, enabling her to be even more chameleon-like in adapting to changing times. The fundamental doctrines remain the same].
He concludes: 'May God give us enlightenment and understanding of the times in which we are living, and awaken us ere it be too late'.
It was therefore refreshing recently to come across some robust common sense on Roman Catholicism. Having been stimulated by a discussion at the Westminster Fellowship last week I discovered at home a photocopy of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones' sermon on Roman Catholicism, preached on Sunday morning, 29th January 1961, and published in the Westminster Record in May 1963. It was part of his series on Ephesians 6:10-13, on the subject 'the wiles of the devil', specifically heresies. For some reason it does not appear in the Banner of Truth Ephesians series, which is a shame.
In his typical methodical fashion, Dr Lloyd-Jones makes the following points:
1. He is alarmed by the rapprochement that some Protestants seem to be envisaging with Roman Catholicism.
2. He does not believe a 'Protestant Society' of any sort is the answer, but rather a straightforward preaching of Christian Truth and the great Reformed doctrines.
3.The increase in RCism is due to a 'weak and flabby Protestantism that does not know what it believes'.
4. He is not talking about individuals - you can be a Christian and RC - but in spite of the system, not because of it.
5. RCism is 'the devil's greatest masterpiece'.
6. Certainly RCism believes in many important Scriptural truths, but adds with a 'damnable plus' things which are utterly unscriptural.
7. She has many guises, depending on the country she is in.
8. Passages relating to the man of lawlessness (2 Thess 2) , the beast from the earth in Revelation 13 and the 'great whore' of Revelation 17, apply to RCism.
9. Three main headings describe how she has brought unrighteous deception into the church:
(i) she has introduced idolatry and superstition (relics etc).
(ii) her whole system comes between the believer and the Lord Jesus Christ. (a)No salvation outside this church. She claims our totalitarian allegiance. (b) The Pope is a manifestation of the man of lawlessness - he speaks as God (2 Thess 2). (c) Also the priests are a class apart - no salvation without them. (d) The Virgin Mary is more important than Jesus Christ in many representations of Catholic teaching and art. (e)The saints and their 'merit' imply that the merit of Jesus in insufficient.
(iii) she not only robs Christ of his glory but robs his salvation of its sufficiency. They add human works to justification. The rites are essential. No assurance of salvation. Purgatory.
10. RCism has not changed - she boasts of not changing.[This may need to be augmented after Vatican II but not retracted - Rome has changed in ways which embrace what we might call postmodernism, enabling her to be even more chameleon-like in adapting to changing times. The fundamental doctrines remain the same].
He concludes: 'May God give us enlightenment and understanding of the times in which we are living, and awaken us ere it be too late'.
Friday, 15 February 2013
Conscience
I recently read Christopher Ash's 'Pure Joy - Rediscover Your Conscience'. It is very helpful and inspired me to read Ole Hallesby's little book, entitled simply 'Conscience'. I have had it on my shelf for years but have not read it before, as far as I remember.
Hallesby is not exactly a Puritan but comes out in the end with a remarkably orthodox doctrine of conscience and its place in conversion and the Christian life. It is a stimulating book full of thought-provoking insights.
In one place he defines conscience as 'the consciousness of self in relation to God - the vital link between man's self-consciousness and his God-consciousness'. Conscience, he says, pronounces judgement according to the knowledge of God's will which a person possesses at the time. It is a universal faculty and exercises the same function (judgement as to moral acts, thoughts words and omissions - this is the 'form' of conscience) in an unbeliever as in a believer. It is deficient however in its content (though the 'form'/ 'function' of conscience is the same) insofar as a person's knowledge of the law of God is deficient. This is the great damage done to conscience by the Fall - its relatively bad, though still existent, knowledge of God's law; though in 'form' it is deficient too in that the voice of conscience is weak as to clarity and its 'volume' is less. But basically it is still the voice of God in man - not infallible , like God's law, but God's fallen vice-regent in fallen man, still to be heeded because it is the closest to God's true voice in us, and we ignore it at our peril.
Hallesby insists that the conscience must be awakened by regeneration to be of use to us in salvation. Once awakened it is the faculty through which the law 'kills' the sinner (Rom 7:9,10' Galatians 2:19). Hallesby is challenging in his criticism of evangelical preachers who do not press home the law hard enough - they go a little way, but too quickly let the sinner off the hook, because they are too afraid of this 'killing' and want the sinner to go straight to grace.
Hallesby says that typically a sinner once convicted will move (i) from trusting his own deeds to get him right with God (to make God love him), then, once seeing the futility of this, to (ii) trusting to what Christ does in him, then finally when all fails (conscience being the operative organ in making him distrust himself, as his knowledge of God's law increases) (iii) he will see that it is only what Christ has done for him, outside of him, that gives him assurance of salvation.
The believer, far from no longer needing conscience, finds his conscience more and more active, which is why maturer believers find more of sin in themselves, as the regenerate heart is increasingly aware of God's law. The cry of Joseph 'How can I ...sin against God' is the spiritually minded person's attitude to sin - hating it not because of what it does to me, but because of what it is in God's sight. The person growing in grace comes to love conscience, and love God's law, as his love for God grows. The believer will love to hear preaching on the law as well as the gospel (O! how some people need to hear that today!). We obey the law because he loves us, not so that he may love us.
There are two equal and opposite dangers: (i) to fall into thinking that it is our keeping of the law that keeps God loving us and (ii) to lessen the demands of the law so we can do it, so that the tension between the law's demand and the law's impossibility is relaxed and the whole dynamic of grace is lost.
Spend time in prayer, counsels Hallesby, for in prayer we allow conscience time to speak to us. A sensitive conscience is the key to spiritual health, and this is not in a sacred sphere as opposed to a secular, because a sensitive conscience makes us live all of life 'coram Deo' (before God).
Hallesby is not exactly a Puritan but comes out in the end with a remarkably orthodox doctrine of conscience and its place in conversion and the Christian life. It is a stimulating book full of thought-provoking insights.
In one place he defines conscience as 'the consciousness of self in relation to God - the vital link between man's self-consciousness and his God-consciousness'. Conscience, he says, pronounces judgement according to the knowledge of God's will which a person possesses at the time. It is a universal faculty and exercises the same function (judgement as to moral acts, thoughts words and omissions - this is the 'form' of conscience) in an unbeliever as in a believer. It is deficient however in its content (though the 'form'/ 'function' of conscience is the same) insofar as a person's knowledge of the law of God is deficient. This is the great damage done to conscience by the Fall - its relatively bad, though still existent, knowledge of God's law; though in 'form' it is deficient too in that the voice of conscience is weak as to clarity and its 'volume' is less. But basically it is still the voice of God in man - not infallible , like God's law, but God's fallen vice-regent in fallen man, still to be heeded because it is the closest to God's true voice in us, and we ignore it at our peril.
Hallesby insists that the conscience must be awakened by regeneration to be of use to us in salvation. Once awakened it is the faculty through which the law 'kills' the sinner (Rom 7:9,10' Galatians 2:19). Hallesby is challenging in his criticism of evangelical preachers who do not press home the law hard enough - they go a little way, but too quickly let the sinner off the hook, because they are too afraid of this 'killing' and want the sinner to go straight to grace.
Hallesby says that typically a sinner once convicted will move (i) from trusting his own deeds to get him right with God (to make God love him), then, once seeing the futility of this, to (ii) trusting to what Christ does in him, then finally when all fails (conscience being the operative organ in making him distrust himself, as his knowledge of God's law increases) (iii) he will see that it is only what Christ has done for him, outside of him, that gives him assurance of salvation.
The believer, far from no longer needing conscience, finds his conscience more and more active, which is why maturer believers find more of sin in themselves, as the regenerate heart is increasingly aware of God's law. The cry of Joseph 'How can I ...sin against God' is the spiritually minded person's attitude to sin - hating it not because of what it does to me, but because of what it is in God's sight. The person growing in grace comes to love conscience, and love God's law, as his love for God grows. The believer will love to hear preaching on the law as well as the gospel (O! how some people need to hear that today!). We obey the law because he loves us, not so that he may love us.
There are two equal and opposite dangers: (i) to fall into thinking that it is our keeping of the law that keeps God loving us and (ii) to lessen the demands of the law so we can do it, so that the tension between the law's demand and the law's impossibility is relaxed and the whole dynamic of grace is lost.
Spend time in prayer, counsels Hallesby, for in prayer we allow conscience time to speak to us. A sensitive conscience is the key to spiritual health, and this is not in a sacred sphere as opposed to a secular, because a sensitive conscience makes us live all of life 'coram Deo' (before God).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
