We had a reformation Bible conference recently in Sheffield and Rev. Richard Brooks preached on the Song of Songs. He emphasised that it is the "Song of Songs", that being an idiom for the "Song of all songs" and not simply the "Song of Solomon", even though Solomon was the human author. Richard has a sensible and rich Christological approach to this book and as a faithful EPCEW minister commented to me recently: "If this book is not about our union and communion with Christ, then its place in the Canon does not make sense".
Richard has a commentary on "the Song" as he affectionately refers to this Bible book which is published by Christian Focus. It is now out of print, but you will still find copies if you google, try Amazon and elsewhere.
If you prefer to listen rather than reading, then check out his sermons on the Sheffield Presbyterian website. The link is: http://www.sheffieldpres.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=108
The biblical book of the "Song of Songs" really needs a good healthy spiritual recovery in the church. This book in the wrong hands is a disaster, such as the way Mark Driscoll handled it. However, in the hands and mouths of faithful Christian ministers, it has much to teach concerning Christ and his church.
This is how the bride responds to Christ in this book: "My beloved is radiant and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand" (5:10). Could you use such language to speak of the Lord Jesus Christ? I hope so!
Wednesday, 28 January 2015
Friday, 23 January 2015
Which English Bible translation should I use?
We are so blessed, even spoiled shall I say, in the English speaking world with a disproportionate amount of material on every given subject in the English language. This is true also regarding Bible translations. However, we must ask whether all Bible translations are equally valid and what should I do when people challenge me regarding the translation that I or a church use?
Two issues come to mind initially.
1. What is the philosophy of the translators or the publishers for a translation?
There are three main approaches to translating which is an art. We believe that it is the original biblical manuscripts of Koine Greek, Hebrew and the small sections in the OT in Aramaic which are immediately inspired. This does not mean that we have a loss of confidence in a good English translation, but this fact must be borne in mind. My wife is Dutch and there are quite simply some words in Dutch which are very difficult to translate. You need to know the mood, the context and Dutch culture to fully understand them. The English love definitions, but some things are not understood just by definition alone. This is also true of the meaning of the biblical languages to a degree.
Here are three different approaches to Bible translation:
A. Some translations seek a literal, but readable translation and these include the ESV, the NASB, NKJV and KJV. This is the ideal in my opinion and I have never preached regularly from any other translation than these.
B. A dynamic equivalent translation includes the NIV. The problem with this approach is that the NIV will substitute words, for example adultery with sexual immorality or something like that, to help the modern reader grasp what is being taught. However, the original text has a much more precise word in mind. This has led in my view to the NIV having a "blunted sword" which lacks precision and clarity.
C. A paraphrase. Sometimes these come close to falling into rank error and a serious mishandling of the original text. For example the Message, the Living Bible and other translations like them, loosely paraphrase the Bible into ultra-contemporary language and miss the biblical ideas. For example the Message was first published in around 1999/2000, but it is already out of date in its language use.
The definite preference is for category A for a reliable translation and certainly one for use in public worship, public reading and preaching.
2. What about the so-called King James only controversy?
With the development of new translations, there has been a defence in some circles of the King James Bible. Some have claimed that the KJV is the only inspired translation in English. This has been developed further by some advocates, who seemingly infer that the NKJV is the only ideal translation for the church. Well time does not permit an extensive assessment here, but I recommend a book by James White called: "The King James Only Controversy: Can you trust the Modern Translations?".
Often in the Christian church fundamentalist assertions are made which sound good, but they cannot stand up to the test of rigorous scrutiny. The KJV and NKJV use an old Greek manuscript called the Textus Receptus which was compiled by the Dutch humanist Erasmus. Some claim that this is the only reliable Greek manuscript. However, since this early 16th Century Greek text was compiled, there have been huge manuscript discoveries which make for a much more enhanced Greek text (Note the 27th Edition of the Nestle Aland Greek Text). Fundamentalism often makes assertions based on guilt and this camp can often assert that unless you follow them at each and every point, then you are disobeying God. It may sound plausible, but it can lead to guilt-ridden untested assumptions.
When the ESV came out I was delighted. I had been using the NKJV for preaching for a long time. R. C. Sproul asserted somewhat enthusiastically that the ESV was "the translation he had waited for all of his life". After using the ESV for almost 10 years I largely agree. I do not agree with the ESV's translation of the phrase "only Son" such as in John 3:16 and elsewhere, when the original Greek word there should be translated as "the only begotten Son". But, this is why we need ministers trained in the original languages.
I hope that this post is of some help. My aim is always pastoral in these blog posts and sometimes my goal as here, is to "massage wrinkles" and avoid unnecessary divisions in the body of Christ, ones which need not be. As ever, feel free to put forward comments on the blog and put a differing point if needed.
Revelation 22:18-19 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book".
KJV = King James Version
NKJV = New King James Version
NASB = New American Standard Bible
ESV = English Standard Version
(Note that a major oversight in the KJV only argument, is that truth must be communicated in the language of the day in a given situation. The KJV is archaic Elizabethan English which no one speaks today, except in parts of Yorkshire :-) ).
(A second Note: I have no issue with anyone preaching from the NKJV, NASB or ESV in public worship. But I will push back strongly when people try to infer a superiority of any one of these fine translations against another, in a way that is divisive or one that undermines the true unity of the church).
Two issues come to mind initially.
1. What is the philosophy of the translators or the publishers for a translation?
There are three main approaches to translating which is an art. We believe that it is the original biblical manuscripts of Koine Greek, Hebrew and the small sections in the OT in Aramaic which are immediately inspired. This does not mean that we have a loss of confidence in a good English translation, but this fact must be borne in mind. My wife is Dutch and there are quite simply some words in Dutch which are very difficult to translate. You need to know the mood, the context and Dutch culture to fully understand them. The English love definitions, but some things are not understood just by definition alone. This is also true of the meaning of the biblical languages to a degree.
Here are three different approaches to Bible translation:
A. Some translations seek a literal, but readable translation and these include the ESV, the NASB, NKJV and KJV. This is the ideal in my opinion and I have never preached regularly from any other translation than these.
B. A dynamic equivalent translation includes the NIV. The problem with this approach is that the NIV will substitute words, for example adultery with sexual immorality or something like that, to help the modern reader grasp what is being taught. However, the original text has a much more precise word in mind. This has led in my view to the NIV having a "blunted sword" which lacks precision and clarity.
C. A paraphrase. Sometimes these come close to falling into rank error and a serious mishandling of the original text. For example the Message, the Living Bible and other translations like them, loosely paraphrase the Bible into ultra-contemporary language and miss the biblical ideas. For example the Message was first published in around 1999/2000, but it is already out of date in its language use.
The definite preference is for category A for a reliable translation and certainly one for use in public worship, public reading and preaching.
2. What about the so-called King James only controversy?
With the development of new translations, there has been a defence in some circles of the King James Bible. Some have claimed that the KJV is the only inspired translation in English. This has been developed further by some advocates, who seemingly infer that the NKJV is the only ideal translation for the church. Well time does not permit an extensive assessment here, but I recommend a book by James White called: "The King James Only Controversy: Can you trust the Modern Translations?".
Often in the Christian church fundamentalist assertions are made which sound good, but they cannot stand up to the test of rigorous scrutiny. The KJV and NKJV use an old Greek manuscript called the Textus Receptus which was compiled by the Dutch humanist Erasmus. Some claim that this is the only reliable Greek manuscript. However, since this early 16th Century Greek text was compiled, there have been huge manuscript discoveries which make for a much more enhanced Greek text (Note the 27th Edition of the Nestle Aland Greek Text). Fundamentalism often makes assertions based on guilt and this camp can often assert that unless you follow them at each and every point, then you are disobeying God. It may sound plausible, but it can lead to guilt-ridden untested assumptions.
When the ESV came out I was delighted. I had been using the NKJV for preaching for a long time. R. C. Sproul asserted somewhat enthusiastically that the ESV was "the translation he had waited for all of his life". After using the ESV for almost 10 years I largely agree. I do not agree with the ESV's translation of the phrase "only Son" such as in John 3:16 and elsewhere, when the original Greek word there should be translated as "the only begotten Son". But, this is why we need ministers trained in the original languages.
I hope that this post is of some help. My aim is always pastoral in these blog posts and sometimes my goal as here, is to "massage wrinkles" and avoid unnecessary divisions in the body of Christ, ones which need not be. As ever, feel free to put forward comments on the blog and put a differing point if needed.
Revelation 22:18-19 "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book".
KJV = King James Version
NKJV = New King James Version
NASB = New American Standard Bible
ESV = English Standard Version
(Note that a major oversight in the KJV only argument, is that truth must be communicated in the language of the day in a given situation. The KJV is archaic Elizabethan English which no one speaks today, except in parts of Yorkshire :-) ).
(A second Note: I have no issue with anyone preaching from the NKJV, NASB or ESV in public worship. But I will push back strongly when people try to infer a superiority of any one of these fine translations against another, in a way that is divisive or one that undermines the true unity of the church).
Wednesday, 14 January 2015
January 2015: Trying to make sense of the recent events in Paris
Jesus answered [Pilate before his crucifixion], “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36).
Two mutually exclusive worldviews clashed last week in France over the Charlie Hebdo depictions of cartoons regarding Islam. What can you say, what can you make of this? Having seen some of the cartoons in the media, I was not impressed with such aggressive secular cartoons, making light of what others consider to be very important. The West seem to have risen up en masse to protest for the importance of free speech. But what is free speech? My ears pricked up when after the events of the killings in the offices of Charlie Hebdo by some Muslim young men, that a French secular commentator spoke of the "sacred value of free speech". When you disect and analyse such a comment, it is indeed a self-contradictory statement.
Here are two worldviews clashing in France and indeed in the West. It must be perplexing for Muslim's living in the West by choice, to find that in contrast to many of the countries where they have come from, that the West does not offer undue respect for Islam or the teachings of Islam. Furthermore, the West do not uphold that Islam is sacred, anymore than other things may be sacred. Though the West has had a Christian heritage, in many parts, this has given way to a strong secular and even atheistic agenda. Muslim's must realise that the Charlie Hebdo situation has no link with Christianity, but with secularism.
Likewise the West and its secular agenda need to wake up on several fronts. The West must realise that Islam is essentially a political ideology and that its teaching requires legal support by the state to uphold its values for it to fully succeed. Hence the calls for Sharia Law and the takeover of Islam in Western countries. For some reason certain facets regarding Islam are just never discussed in the public sphere, even though we are told we believe in free speech. Many of the Western leaders are highly intolerant of religion, indeed they have little time for religion and quite frankly they do not believe in the sacred value of free speech, but only when it suits them.
Currently, the West promotes a secular atheistic, anti-marriage (by Christian definition) and pro-homosexual or trans-gender programme. For some strange reason the sacred value of free speech breaks down when people say they disagree with their worldview. For example for anyone to have an interview at a University in the West and openly say that they believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that all other views are false and also that they reject evolution as an unbiblical and untenable scientific theory; would they be given the job? Almost definitely not, because they are rejecting the pluralistic, multi-faith so-called "free speech" platform. It is a so-called free speech agenda with rules defined by secular humanists.
Two final thoughts. Karl Marx once wrote that: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions".
Sadly, in the West today, materialism is often the opium of the people.
The Bible is very clear and it has unique claims which will be rejected by secularists and followers of Islam alike and similarly both will be intolerant of the sayings of the Bible. For example "Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Both the secularists and the teachers of Islam are wrong regarding Jesus Christ and both are equally intolerant and both equally forbid freedom of speech regarding the claims of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that "I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:23-24). If Muslim's and secularists do not confess and acknowledge that Jesus is God's Saviour and the only promised Redeemer of men and women sent by God, then they will die in their sins and face the judgment of God without a Saviour. That is the truth.
For Christians, be encouraged that we do not fight flesh and blood. This world is inherently sinful, and yet our God of heaven is in control. Pray for all peoples to saved and to be brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Two mutually exclusive worldviews clashed last week in France over the Charlie Hebdo depictions of cartoons regarding Islam. What can you say, what can you make of this? Having seen some of the cartoons in the media, I was not impressed with such aggressive secular cartoons, making light of what others consider to be very important. The West seem to have risen up en masse to protest for the importance of free speech. But what is free speech? My ears pricked up when after the events of the killings in the offices of Charlie Hebdo by some Muslim young men, that a French secular commentator spoke of the "sacred value of free speech". When you disect and analyse such a comment, it is indeed a self-contradictory statement.
Here are two worldviews clashing in France and indeed in the West. It must be perplexing for Muslim's living in the West by choice, to find that in contrast to many of the countries where they have come from, that the West does not offer undue respect for Islam or the teachings of Islam. Furthermore, the West do not uphold that Islam is sacred, anymore than other things may be sacred. Though the West has had a Christian heritage, in many parts, this has given way to a strong secular and even atheistic agenda. Muslim's must realise that the Charlie Hebdo situation has no link with Christianity, but with secularism.
Likewise the West and its secular agenda need to wake up on several fronts. The West must realise that Islam is essentially a political ideology and that its teaching requires legal support by the state to uphold its values for it to fully succeed. Hence the calls for Sharia Law and the takeover of Islam in Western countries. For some reason certain facets regarding Islam are just never discussed in the public sphere, even though we are told we believe in free speech. Many of the Western leaders are highly intolerant of religion, indeed they have little time for religion and quite frankly they do not believe in the sacred value of free speech, but only when it suits them.
Currently, the West promotes a secular atheistic, anti-marriage (by Christian definition) and pro-homosexual or trans-gender programme. For some strange reason the sacred value of free speech breaks down when people say they disagree with their worldview. For example for anyone to have an interview at a University in the West and openly say that they believe that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that all other views are false and also that they reject evolution as an unbiblical and untenable scientific theory; would they be given the job? Almost definitely not, because they are rejecting the pluralistic, multi-faith so-called "free speech" platform. It is a so-called free speech agenda with rules defined by secular humanists.
Two final thoughts. Karl Marx once wrote that: "Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions".
Sadly, in the West today, materialism is often the opium of the people.
The Bible is very clear and it has unique claims which will be rejected by secularists and followers of Islam alike and similarly both will be intolerant of the sayings of the Bible. For example "Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Both the secularists and the teachers of Islam are wrong regarding Jesus Christ and both are equally intolerant and both equally forbid freedom of speech regarding the claims of Jesus Christ. Jesus said that "I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins” (John 8:23-24). If Muslim's and secularists do not confess and acknowledge that Jesus is God's Saviour and the only promised Redeemer of men and women sent by God, then they will die in their sins and face the judgment of God without a Saviour. That is the truth.
For Christians, be encouraged that we do not fight flesh and blood. This world is inherently sinful, and yet our God of heaven is in control. Pray for all peoples to saved and to be brought to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
Monday, 5 January 2015
The Majesty of the Message of the Book of Hebrews
Since the early part of 2014, I have been preaching through the Book of Hebrews in the morning services at Sheffield Presbyterian Church. My, what fine spiritual riches are to be found in this important book. I think that if you were to ask many Christians, "which book of the Bible has profoundly impacted the church?", they would rightly answer the book of Romans. However, the Book of Hebrews is a suitable counterbalance to the flawless logic of Romans. Let me sum up this short devotional blog post around answering three questions.
What are some of the important themes in Hebrews?
1. An appreciation for the Person of the Son, who in time in his incarnation took upon himself the name Jesus.
2. The fulfilment of the OT ceremonial worship by Jesus Christ.
3. A rich understanding for the atonement.
4. To avoid going backwards to OT ceremonies which are commonly sought to be reintroduced to the church, such as candles, vestments, altars, stained glass, priestly robes and so forth.
5. The simplicity of NT worship which should be conducted with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28).
What are some commentaries that I have found helpful on this book?
Here are the commentaries that I have found most helpful in order.
1. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes.
2. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Geerhardus Vos.
3. I Wish Someone Would Explain Hebrews to Me! Stuart Olyott.
4. A Commentary on Hebrews by John Owen (this is thick with six volumes and though Owen is very helpful, he is not always right, though he is very persuasive).
5. Hebrews, Simon J. Kistemaker.
Peter Naylor gave an excellent talk on preaching through Hebrews at the EPCEW presbytery conference in January 2014. The link is: http://www.epcew.org.uk/audio/2014-elders-conf-6.mp3
In what way can Hebrews help the church in 2015 and onwards?
I think a rich appreciation of the teaching of Hebrews, could equip the church better to handle two dangers in particular; dispensationalism and new patterns of worship dominated by protracted periods of singing at the expense of preaching and the reading of Scripture or the administration of the sacraments.
The dispensational agenda seeks a third Jewish temple and the rebuilding of political Zion. Hebrews explains that the OT ceremonies are simply a shadow and copy of the real thing which is the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews chapter 8 and especially verse 5). In addition Hebrews emphasises the ingredients for biblical worship are to focus on Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and his atoning blood, there is no other approach. Music bands cannot substitute the mediator and also Hebrews 12:28 has to be a crucial verse to be implemented in our day. Hebrews 12:28-29 "Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire".
What are some of the important themes in Hebrews?
1. An appreciation for the Person of the Son, who in time in his incarnation took upon himself the name Jesus.
2. The fulfilment of the OT ceremonial worship by Jesus Christ.
3. A rich understanding for the atonement.
4. To avoid going backwards to OT ceremonies which are commonly sought to be reintroduced to the church, such as candles, vestments, altars, stained glass, priestly robes and so forth.
5. The simplicity of NT worship which should be conducted with reverence and awe (Hebrews 12:28).
What are some commentaries that I have found helpful on this book?
Here are the commentaries that I have found most helpful in order.
1. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Philip Edgcumbe Hughes.
2. The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Geerhardus Vos.
3. I Wish Someone Would Explain Hebrews to Me! Stuart Olyott.
4. A Commentary on Hebrews by John Owen (this is thick with six volumes and though Owen is very helpful, he is not always right, though he is very persuasive).
5. Hebrews, Simon J. Kistemaker.
Peter Naylor gave an excellent talk on preaching through Hebrews at the EPCEW presbytery conference in January 2014. The link is: http://www.epcew.org.uk/audio/2014-elders-conf-6.mp3
In what way can Hebrews help the church in 2015 and onwards?
I think a rich appreciation of the teaching of Hebrews, could equip the church better to handle two dangers in particular; dispensationalism and new patterns of worship dominated by protracted periods of singing at the expense of preaching and the reading of Scripture or the administration of the sacraments.
The dispensational agenda seeks a third Jewish temple and the rebuilding of political Zion. Hebrews explains that the OT ceremonies are simply a shadow and copy of the real thing which is the heavenly tabernacle (Hebrews chapter 8 and especially verse 5). In addition Hebrews emphasises the ingredients for biblical worship are to focus on Jesus the mediator of the new covenant and his atoning blood, there is no other approach. Music bands cannot substitute the mediator and also Hebrews 12:28 has to be a crucial verse to be implemented in our day. Hebrews 12:28-29 "Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire".
Wednesday, 31 December 2014
The End of 2014: The Sad Spiritual Condition of the United Kingdom
As 2014 draws to a close, a sad chapter in the history of the United Kingdom begins. One of the disadvantages of having such a blessed spiritual past, such as this nation has had, one that at one time was so committed to Christianity and the sending of gospel missionaries around the world, is that the dismantling of the Ten Commandments for everyday life seems all the more worse. Who could have imagined that in 2014 that we could expect better moral guidance from Russia than from the government of the UK? I know that the UK government take the moral high ground, but it is baseless, it is post-modern humanism based upon subjective assumptions, all in the name of democracy. Who knows what democracy means in such a time of flux? Democracy in the UK now enforces its new moralism upon all and it discriminates against all who disagree with her.
Let me give two examples of the sad spiritual condition of the United Kingdom.
1. The passing of the same sex couples legislation.
In the summer of 2014, the UK government to their great delight, passed this landmark bill. All major parties united together to move Britain into a new era. The Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, till death they do part. This biblical truth has not changed, but the UK government now openly contradicts biblical law at its most basic point.
It will take wisdom and courage for true Christians and true churches to make their stand against secular anti-Christian and humanistic forces. We can and must positively promote the biblical view of marriage, even though when we do so, the world will wrongly charge us with being bigoted. This is a dictionary definition of bigoted: "Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others". We must therefore, in humility, defend the biblical position on marriage and with courage against a bigoted opposition.
However, we must realise that this UK government is not happy to simply protect vulnerable individuals and I certainly do not advocate homophobia or the bullying of people with contrary opinions. But the UK government now want to positively discriminate and actively promote its new definition of same-sex marriage in all levels of education, civil services, the NHS, Universities, and of course the government's vehicle for change, the BBC. This is where the challenge really lies as Christians consider how best to respond to the ever-widening net of secularism on the frontline of life and their vocations.
2. The unveiling of the first woman bishop by the Church of England
Liberalism is Christian religion that places its own opinions above the plain and express teaching of the Bible. The Scripture is clear in its teaching that: "If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ..." (1 Timothy 3:1-2). How then can the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby announce that he is delighted that the first woman bishop will soon be in post? It is because the senior hierarchy place their opinions higher than those of the written Scriptures. It is impossible to be a woman bishop, or to submit to the authority of a woman bishop and to be faithful to Jesus Christ the head of the church at the same time. Another crisis continues in the State Church.
Three ways to pray for the United Kingdom
People from around the world read this blog and I would urge you to cry out to the Lord for mercy for the United Kingdom. This nation is truly in a moral mess and it is a mission field today: we need the Lord's intervention. Here are three ways to pray.
1. To pray for the UK government as the apostolic command requires in 1 Timothy 2:1-3.
This is so that the church may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. We are not looking for an easy life, but let us pray that MP's and those in high positions of authority, that they would be converted to the One, true and living God. The sober warning of Jesus drives us to our knees in prayer for them. John 8:24 "For unless you believe that I am he [the promised Christ and only Saviour] you will die in your sins".
2. For the recovery of the authority of Scripture in the congregations of all kinds of denominations
According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 there is no other safe guide for the church than the written Scriptures. Nothing short of a grass-root's return to the sufficiency and authority of the written Scriptures, ones which are to be obeyed, loved and kept will be satisfactory. Anything less than this means the church will live in rebellion to the Lord and the Lord does not bless rebellion.
3. For the Lord to raise up labourers for the harvest (Matthew 9:36-38).
Pray that the Lord would raise up men who are called to be faithful pastors in God's church. Men who know the gospel and men who know how to preach the gospel and care for the flock of God. With that note, let us be sober minded in prayer regarding the sad spiritual state of the United kingdom, but let those who heed this warning seriously respond, and respond in faith and with much prayer. May the Lord restore the fortunes of Zion in the United kingdom again (Psalms 14:7, 53:6, 126)!!
John Calvin said in his own day: "“nothing is more ruinous to the Church than for God to take away faithful pastors”. Do you agree with Calvin on this point because this is vital for the health of the church? In the midst of spiritual decay in his own generation, Calvin never seemed to lose sight of the sovereign hand of God, something we must not lose sight of also. He also wrote that: God “preserves the Church by unknown methods and without the assistance of men” ... “the Church will always rise again, and be restored to her former and prosperous condition, though all conclude that she is ruined”. Let us be encouraged with this, but let us apply this truth as well by praying to our Sovereign Lord.
Let me give two examples of the sad spiritual condition of the United Kingdom.
1. The passing of the same sex couples legislation.
In the summer of 2014, the UK government to their great delight, passed this landmark bill. All major parties united together to move Britain into a new era. The Bible teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, till death they do part. This biblical truth has not changed, but the UK government now openly contradicts biblical law at its most basic point.
It will take wisdom and courage for true Christians and true churches to make their stand against secular anti-Christian and humanistic forces. We can and must positively promote the biblical view of marriage, even though when we do so, the world will wrongly charge us with being bigoted. This is a dictionary definition of bigoted: "Having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others". We must therefore, in humility, defend the biblical position on marriage and with courage against a bigoted opposition.
However, we must realise that this UK government is not happy to simply protect vulnerable individuals and I certainly do not advocate homophobia or the bullying of people with contrary opinions. But the UK government now want to positively discriminate and actively promote its new definition of same-sex marriage in all levels of education, civil services, the NHS, Universities, and of course the government's vehicle for change, the BBC. This is where the challenge really lies as Christians consider how best to respond to the ever-widening net of secularism on the frontline of life and their vocations.
2. The unveiling of the first woman bishop by the Church of England
Liberalism is Christian religion that places its own opinions above the plain and express teaching of the Bible. The Scripture is clear in its teaching that: "If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife ..." (1 Timothy 3:1-2). How then can the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby announce that he is delighted that the first woman bishop will soon be in post? It is because the senior hierarchy place their opinions higher than those of the written Scriptures. It is impossible to be a woman bishop, or to submit to the authority of a woman bishop and to be faithful to Jesus Christ the head of the church at the same time. Another crisis continues in the State Church.
Three ways to pray for the United Kingdom
People from around the world read this blog and I would urge you to cry out to the Lord for mercy for the United Kingdom. This nation is truly in a moral mess and it is a mission field today: we need the Lord's intervention. Here are three ways to pray.
1. To pray for the UK government as the apostolic command requires in 1 Timothy 2:1-3.
This is so that the church may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. We are not looking for an easy life, but let us pray that MP's and those in high positions of authority, that they would be converted to the One, true and living God. The sober warning of Jesus drives us to our knees in prayer for them. John 8:24 "For unless you believe that I am he [the promised Christ and only Saviour] you will die in your sins".
2. For the recovery of the authority of Scripture in the congregations of all kinds of denominations
According to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 there is no other safe guide for the church than the written Scriptures. Nothing short of a grass-root's return to the sufficiency and authority of the written Scriptures, ones which are to be obeyed, loved and kept will be satisfactory. Anything less than this means the church will live in rebellion to the Lord and the Lord does not bless rebellion.
3. For the Lord to raise up labourers for the harvest (Matthew 9:36-38).
Pray that the Lord would raise up men who are called to be faithful pastors in God's church. Men who know the gospel and men who know how to preach the gospel and care for the flock of God. With that note, let us be sober minded in prayer regarding the sad spiritual state of the United kingdom, but let those who heed this warning seriously respond, and respond in faith and with much prayer. May the Lord restore the fortunes of Zion in the United kingdom again (Psalms 14:7, 53:6, 126)!!
John Calvin said in his own day: "“nothing is more ruinous to the Church than for God to take away faithful pastors”. Do you agree with Calvin on this point because this is vital for the health of the church? In the midst of spiritual decay in his own generation, Calvin never seemed to lose sight of the sovereign hand of God, something we must not lose sight of also. He also wrote that: God “preserves the Church by unknown methods and without the assistance of men” ... “the Church will always rise again, and be restored to her former and prosperous condition, though all conclude that she is ruined”. Let us be encouraged with this, but let us apply this truth as well by praying to our Sovereign Lord.
Tuesday, 16 December 2014
Young, Restless and "not really" Reformed
There was a book written by a man in the USA called Collin Hansen, around 2006, with the title "Young, Restless and Reformed". The title itself is gripping and so is the material in that book, which records the growth of a Calvinistic approach to the Bible, most especially in the USA. For this we are indeed thankful. Charles Haddon Spurgeon was the pastor of the largest church in the world in London, but at his death he died a disappointed man, being the witness of a doctrinal downgrade in his own day. He knew that those old doctrines he held would one-day make a comeback. Spurgeon wrote: "The doctrine which is now rejected as the effete theory of the Puritans and Calvinists will yet conquer human thought and reign supreme. As surely as the sun which sets tonight shall rise tomorrow at the predestined hour, so shall the truth of God shine forth over the whole earth" (Iain Murray, "The Forgotten Spurgeon", p 190".
I deem that we are seeing something of a recovery of what Jeremiah called the "ancient paths" (Jeremiah 6:16) in our day and we are thankful for it. My vantage point is of the state of evangelical and reformed churches in the UK mainly, though I am no expert. But I say this, to make the point that I am not commenting on the situation in the USA, though what I say may be relevant. I heard Mike Horton comment in a conference in 2013 on this so called "young, restless and reformed movement" and he made a good point; he said "there is one thing for sure, it is restless". This got me thinking.
There is a recovery of reformed thought in the UK and especially in England and Wales and yet there is the need to define what the word reformed has historically meant. I will briefly summarise what the idea of being biblically reformed has historically conveyed and then I will make a few brief assessments of the "state-of-play" in England, if I may.
A summary of what the word reformed has historically meant
To be reformed has historically meant a re-shaping of the church along three lines; its worship, doctrine and church government. Each of these three areas are to be shaped by a maxim to do only what Scripture commands. This ties the church to biblical faithfulness, but we do not interpret the Scriptures in a vacuum. To believe in the reformation cry for "Sola Scriptura" does not mean that we interpret the Bible without any aids. As a friend of mine Andy Young, recently stated in a conference, we need three compass points: "history, reformed confessions and the Bible".
Therefore, to be reformed has meant a commitment to a biblical pattern of church government, an apostolic pattern. The early church had a church government composed of elders and deacons. The elders were responsible for the governance and teaching, with the deacons being responsible for practical care and compassion. These churches were not isolated and independent and the final court of appeal was not solely a congregational meeting. There was a connectionalism which was vital for accountability and the spiritual well-being of the wider church. There should always be an enthusiastic commitment to a reformed confession and they should be used to teach the church. Nominal confessional commitment often is the seed-bed for a doctrinal downgrade.
Also public worship must be consciously shaped by a commitment to a regulative principle for worship. This means that it is Scripture that mandates what we do publicly. This view has been fraught with some difficulties, because some groups want to splinter off with divisive moves and to assert that unless every church does things exactly the way they prescribe, then they will not endorse them. This can be prideful, but a general principle must be upheld by all, that the Scripture is to direct our affairs in worship.
The "state-of-play" in England
There is widespread independency in England and also in Wales. This independency is almost proud of its defence for independency and it arose out of the liberalism which wrecked good denominations. As a result people came out of liberal denominations and often formed independent evangelical churches, sometimes they were called a "Free Evangelical Church" which meant "free" from denominations. These churches were rightly committed to biblical inerrancy, the major points of doctrine such as the resurrection of Jesus and in being committed to conservative hymn singing and preaching. However, church government varied in its application, most of these churches were baptistic in their thinking and the doctrine of the church had not been as well thought through as it should have been.
We are thankful for their stand against liberalism. However, after a generation, many of these churches and other types of churches as well, have had to ask themselves; what is the way forward? The choice before many churches has been to stay alive which often means one of two things: Either a return to the teaching of the Scriptures in matters of doctrine, worship and government or to seek to be contemporary and calvinistic (note my small "c") to win people to themselves.
My observation is that many preachers in England and Wales have promoted and have also endorsed a "young, restless, contemporary and 'not really' reformed position". The move to be contemporary has meant a downplaying of reformed confessions. Reformed confessions and creeds may not be rejected in such situations, but they are never mentioned, such documents simply gather dust on shelves. The term a regulative principle for worship is never mentioned because this could arouse their members to ask difficult questions, such as "why do we have to sing at least one Stuart Townend song every week?" or "why have you done away with using Psalm and hymn books? or "why has the pulpit been replaced with a music stand?". Similarly, church government is never mentioned, but it is just assumed that the way they do things is biblically based.
However, a truly biblical position and a correct expression of "being reformed" (note the present continuous participle) is an ongoing work, it should not lead to being stationary. There has arisen through the side-door of the church in England and Wales, a "young, restless and 'not-really' Reformed" breed of churches, in my opinion. I welcome blog comments and I welcome people disagreeing with me as well, especially if they do so in a calm and godly spirit. Feel free to add a comment if you read this blog.
I deem that we are seeing something of a recovery of what Jeremiah called the "ancient paths" (Jeremiah 6:16) in our day and we are thankful for it. My vantage point is of the state of evangelical and reformed churches in the UK mainly, though I am no expert. But I say this, to make the point that I am not commenting on the situation in the USA, though what I say may be relevant. I heard Mike Horton comment in a conference in 2013 on this so called "young, restless and reformed movement" and he made a good point; he said "there is one thing for sure, it is restless". This got me thinking.
There is a recovery of reformed thought in the UK and especially in England and Wales and yet there is the need to define what the word reformed has historically meant. I will briefly summarise what the idea of being biblically reformed has historically conveyed and then I will make a few brief assessments of the "state-of-play" in England, if I may.
A summary of what the word reformed has historically meant
To be reformed has historically meant a re-shaping of the church along three lines; its worship, doctrine and church government. Each of these three areas are to be shaped by a maxim to do only what Scripture commands. This ties the church to biblical faithfulness, but we do not interpret the Scriptures in a vacuum. To believe in the reformation cry for "Sola Scriptura" does not mean that we interpret the Bible without any aids. As a friend of mine Andy Young, recently stated in a conference, we need three compass points: "history, reformed confessions and the Bible".
Therefore, to be reformed has meant a commitment to a biblical pattern of church government, an apostolic pattern. The early church had a church government composed of elders and deacons. The elders were responsible for the governance and teaching, with the deacons being responsible for practical care and compassion. These churches were not isolated and independent and the final court of appeal was not solely a congregational meeting. There was a connectionalism which was vital for accountability and the spiritual well-being of the wider church. There should always be an enthusiastic commitment to a reformed confession and they should be used to teach the church. Nominal confessional commitment often is the seed-bed for a doctrinal downgrade.
Also public worship must be consciously shaped by a commitment to a regulative principle for worship. This means that it is Scripture that mandates what we do publicly. This view has been fraught with some difficulties, because some groups want to splinter off with divisive moves and to assert that unless every church does things exactly the way they prescribe, then they will not endorse them. This can be prideful, but a general principle must be upheld by all, that the Scripture is to direct our affairs in worship.
The "state-of-play" in England
There is widespread independency in England and also in Wales. This independency is almost proud of its defence for independency and it arose out of the liberalism which wrecked good denominations. As a result people came out of liberal denominations and often formed independent evangelical churches, sometimes they were called a "Free Evangelical Church" which meant "free" from denominations. These churches were rightly committed to biblical inerrancy, the major points of doctrine such as the resurrection of Jesus and in being committed to conservative hymn singing and preaching. However, church government varied in its application, most of these churches were baptistic in their thinking and the doctrine of the church had not been as well thought through as it should have been.
We are thankful for their stand against liberalism. However, after a generation, many of these churches and other types of churches as well, have had to ask themselves; what is the way forward? The choice before many churches has been to stay alive which often means one of two things: Either a return to the teaching of the Scriptures in matters of doctrine, worship and government or to seek to be contemporary and calvinistic (note my small "c") to win people to themselves.
My observation is that many preachers in England and Wales have promoted and have also endorsed a "young, restless, contemporary and 'not really' reformed position". The move to be contemporary has meant a downplaying of reformed confessions. Reformed confessions and creeds may not be rejected in such situations, but they are never mentioned, such documents simply gather dust on shelves. The term a regulative principle for worship is never mentioned because this could arouse their members to ask difficult questions, such as "why do we have to sing at least one Stuart Townend song every week?" or "why have you done away with using Psalm and hymn books? or "why has the pulpit been replaced with a music stand?". Similarly, church government is never mentioned, but it is just assumed that the way they do things is biblically based.
However, a truly biblical position and a correct expression of "being reformed" (note the present continuous participle) is an ongoing work, it should not lead to being stationary. There has arisen through the side-door of the church in England and Wales, a "young, restless and 'not-really' Reformed" breed of churches, in my opinion. I welcome blog comments and I welcome people disagreeing with me as well, especially if they do so in a calm and godly spirit. Feel free to add a comment if you read this blog.
Monday, 8 December 2014
Book Review: "Confessing the Faith: a Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith" by Chad Van Dixhoorn
This companion volume for a reader of the Westminster Confession of Faith is heartily welcomed. Chad Van Dixhoorn is not only the world’s expert on the minutes and papers of the Westminster assembly, but he is also an ordained minister and a church practitioner. He is not writing this volume with a detached view of theology. Far from it. His writing style seeks to engage the reader with the doctrines of this Confession and he does so intelligibly and with a lively style.
Following on from the "Foreword" by Carl Trueman, Van Dixhoorn introduces his own book and he writes of the Westminster Confession that “perhaps it is the wisest of creeds in its teaching and the finest in its doctrinal expression” (xix). A chapter in the book is devoted to each of the 33 chapters in the confession and the author imposes his own nine headings to summarise the confession’s teaching. These headings are: Foundations (1-2), The Decrees of God (3-5), Sin and the Saviour (6-8), Salvation (9-18), Law and Liberty (19-20), Worship (21-22), Civil Government and Family (23-24), The Church (25-31) and Last Things (32-33).
Van Dixhoorn has developed a helpful writing style where he inserts good “pithy comments” and “turn of phrase” at appropriate moments. For example in his explanation of the clarity of Scripture he writes that “mapping the high points of the Bible is tiring work” (22). Again on the texts and translations of Scripture, he wonderfully summarises: “The Bible we have is authentic” (23).
This book contains a freshness which can only serve to further recover confessional Christianity in our generation. The chapters on the Law, the Christian Sabbath and the Communion of the Saints may be useful starting points for those contemporary Christians and ministers who have been brought up with a reformed background and yet somehow they feel they can improve the "state of play" by down-playing key reformed doctrines. On the other hand, we must not think that this book is the final word on the doctrines of this confession. This is simply a reader’s guide, an introduction, and a companion for those who desire to teach the confession or to understand it better. “Tolle lege”; pick up and read, both this book and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Following on from the "Foreword" by Carl Trueman, Van Dixhoorn introduces his own book and he writes of the Westminster Confession that “perhaps it is the wisest of creeds in its teaching and the finest in its doctrinal expression” (xix). A chapter in the book is devoted to each of the 33 chapters in the confession and the author imposes his own nine headings to summarise the confession’s teaching. These headings are: Foundations (1-2), The Decrees of God (3-5), Sin and the Saviour (6-8), Salvation (9-18), Law and Liberty (19-20), Worship (21-22), Civil Government and Family (23-24), The Church (25-31) and Last Things (32-33).
Van Dixhoorn has developed a helpful writing style where he inserts good “pithy comments” and “turn of phrase” at appropriate moments. For example in his explanation of the clarity of Scripture he writes that “mapping the high points of the Bible is tiring work” (22). Again on the texts and translations of Scripture, he wonderfully summarises: “The Bible we have is authentic” (23).
This book contains a freshness which can only serve to further recover confessional Christianity in our generation. The chapters on the Law, the Christian Sabbath and the Communion of the Saints may be useful starting points for those contemporary Christians and ministers who have been brought up with a reformed background and yet somehow they feel they can improve the "state of play" by down-playing key reformed doctrines. On the other hand, we must not think that this book is the final word on the doctrines of this confession. This is simply a reader’s guide, an introduction, and a companion for those who desire to teach the confession or to understand it better. “Tolle lege”; pick up and read, both this book and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)