Go back to the Early Church and they might say something very similar. I liked it.
Here’s the Blurb for it. Not surprised to see it getting the thumbs down.
Tim Stanley
Catholic convert and historian Tim Stanley wants a Pope who will resist demands for change and defend Catholic doctrines which are absolutely integral to its existence. Tim argues that any reform to its traditional teachings on sexuality or the role of women would simply undermine Catholicism, and those who are calling for change need to accept the Church the way it is, or leave.
Today Numbers Chapter 7 came around in the reading plan I follow. The chapter is 89 verses long and much of it is repeated 12 times but with a change of day (first, second etc.) and name of tribe and leader. Apart from those changes it’s then repeated through to verse 83. Thus:
Num 7:12 He who offered his offering the first day was Nahshon the son of Amminadab, of the tribe of Judah. Num 7:13 And his offering was one silver plate whose weight was 130 shekels, one silver basin of 70 shekels, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, both of them full of fine flour mixed with oil for a grain offering; Num 7:14 one golden dish of 10 shekels, full of incense; Num 7:15 one bull from the herd, one ram, one male lamb a year old, for a burnt offering; Num 7:16 one male goat for a sin offering; Num 7:17 and for the sacrifice of peace offerings, two oxen, five rams, five male goats, and five male lambs a year old. This was the offering of Nahshon the son of Amminadab.
This puzzled me for some time. A Christian friend of mine said each year he reached this chapter his practice was to read the first 17 verses and then jump forward to verse 84. But, I reasoned, if this is really the Word of God then each word is God-Breathed and ought to be read if for no other reason than that.
Here’s a new thing that struck me from this passage on reading it this morning . Every tribe was on exactly the same level, no tribe brought more and no tribe brought less. Bringing an offering to God is a great leveler. We bring it through Christ or it’s not accepted. And to state the obvious every single offering speaks of Jesus Christ and points to His once for all offering on Calvary.
Here’s another one, they did what the LORD told them to do. They brought their offering in the way He prescribed with no opportunity for one-upmanship. We don’t devise our own way of salvation – as many do today – we come God’s way not man’s way. We are justified through Grace , not works.
Just one last one. Despite what we might think, God is not in a hurry. The whole process of the chapter took 2 weeks. I reckon in our modern age we would have wanted to get it all done in a day. But no. It was a lengthy process and took time. Each tribe had time to contemplate what was going on. And by rushing through this chapter in order to get through the book we can miss the good things God has to say to us in His Word.
There’s more. So no! This chapter is not the most boring chapter in the Bible but is actually full of Glory and Wonder and I thank God for it. So till next year maybe. I actually look forward to this chapter each time it comes round. If we will think and spend time in the Word of God it really does speak of Christ and His Grace in the most surprising places.
Sometimes a light surprises the Christian while he sings;
It is the Lord, who rises with healing in His wings:
When comforts are declining, He grants the soul again
A season of clear shining, to cheer it after rain.
In holy contemplation we sweetly then pursue
The theme of God’s salvation, and find it ever new.
Set free from present sorrow, we cheerfully can say,
Let the unknown tomorrow bring with it what it may.
It can bring with it nothing but He will bear us through;
Who gives the lilies clothing will clothe His people, too;
Beneath the spreading heavens, no creature but is fed;
And He Who feeds the ravens will give His children bread.
Though vine nor fig tree neither their wonted fruit should bear,
Though all the field should wither, nor flocks nor herds be there;
Yet God the same abiding, His praise shall tune my voice,
For while in Him confiding, I cannot but rejoice.
Words: William Cowper, Olney Hymns (London: W. Oliver, 1779).
Along with thousands of other people I received an email today from Christian Concern about a bus campaign in London. I’d already heard about it though on BBC’s ‘Today’ programme on Radio 4. Basically though, some time ago Stonewall (Homosexual pressure group) ran a bus campaign in London with ‘Some are Gay – Get over it’ on the side and with Stonewall’s name attached to the poster.
Another group are wanting to launch a similar campaign but with ‘Not Gay! Ex Gay, Post-Gay and Proud – Get Over It’ on the side with links to www.anglican-mainstream.net & www.core-issues.org clearly displayed on the side.
Boris Johnson Conservative party ‘Character in Chief’ all round personality and Mayor of London has other ideas. Consequently,
On Thursday (28 February) the High Court will hear claims that Boris Johnson, Chair of Transport for London denied a Christian group the freedom to express its views on the legitimacy of therapy for those dealing with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction.
I know that if a homosexual were to call some counselling organisations and ask for help to change from what they believed to be a sinful lifestyle they would find a frosty and hostile reception. And so in the same piece e read:
Any alternative to the homosexual lifestyle is deemed unacceptable and TfL are arguing that Christian hope must be suppressed for the ‘protection of morals’.
Didn’t you know, Free Speech only works one way! I’ll be delighted but staggered if they win the right to have the campaign. They certainly ought to be allowed to have it. If that happens it’ll 3 cheers for common sense and consistency. So,
On Thursday, the Trust will ask Judges to reverse the ban on the basis that the Mayor had unlawfully restricted free speech, and had discriminated against the Trust by stifling one side of the debate on the issue.
View of the House of Lords Chamber in the Palace of Westminster, London, looking from the galleries towards the Throne (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The second reading of the Same-Sex Marriage bill was passed a couple of weeks ago but I wrote most of this on the day of the vote but for some reason didn’t post it – so here it is!
Will this vote see the end of Free Speech. It should concern any lover of Democracy, that the freedom to disagree with the Same-Sex legislation will end. I believe it will see the beginning of a Witch-Hunt to find and root out ‘deniers’ of Same-Sex Marriage.
Stonewall and other ideological lobby groups will over time entrap unsuspecting believers (Christians) into saying something that will force a prosecution. This is already happening. Stonewall, I suggest, will not rest until everyone sees Homosexual & Lesbian practice and therefore Same-Sex Marriage as normal.
I haven’t heard or read (please correct me) about any protection for individuals in the work place or any other place for that matter that disagrees or believes that not only same-sex marriages but homosexuality & lesbianism is sinful according to the Bible. There looks to be only protection for Individual Ministers & Religious Organisations (if it happens) but nothing for the ordinary individual Christian, e.g. in the workplace. Not just Christians, but anyone that agrees with the phrase “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (attributed to Voltaire) ought to be concerned. I’ll certainly be writing to my MP (and PM) again about this.
“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Where this leaves the Bible in all this will be interesting to see because the Bible teaches the very opposite of what could soon be enshrined in UK Law.
Will the Bible be outlawed? Will some passages of the Bible be outlawed and will those that believe those passages and indeed all the Bible be outlawed?
Where to now? The Bill now passes through to the House of Lords and to further scrutiny by Parliament There is then – I think – a third reading before it becomes law. The Bill will come under intense critical reading as it moves through the Parliamentary process. Whether this will be the opportunity to build into legislation protection for those that disagree I can’t say. But to not prosecute ‘deniers’ raises the question about what it was all about in the first place. It seems to me prosecutions will follow.
I do not believe the majority are for this change – but what is more likely to be true is that the majority just can’t be bothered. Apathy.
There is another possible alternative for the Church to think about. Go here to read about it – but basically the Church itself re-defines marriage and calls it Holy Matrimony.
I only heard snippets from the speeches but was struck that some MP’s said or at least implied something like: ‘I don’t believe God would be against same-sex marriage’ or ‘a God of love would not allow same-sex couples in loving relationships to be barred from marriage’ or similar sentiments. But how can anyone presume to speak for God when He has already spoken plainly in His Word the Bible.
Why anyone would want to claim the name of Christian or follower of Jesus and yet completely ignore what He has to say can only be explained by the words of the Apostle Paul as follows:
2 Timothy 3:1-9
1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
2 Timothy 4:3, 8 & 9
New International Version (NIV)
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
I’ve been quite critical of John MacArthur and his hermeneutic as I perceive taught by the Masters Seminary but haven’t really listened to much of his preaching. To put that right I have listened to his series on Isaiah 53 in the car as I travel to and from work. There has been no note-taking so what follows is made up of what came across to be the main thrust of the ministry – how it came over.
MacArthur is a really good speaker and although I’ve not been that impressed by the overall content he nevertheless has a voice that is easy on the ear, his voice or tone, or pitch doesn’t assault my senses and is very clear and well articulated. The recording is good quality so all in all it’s really not a struggle to listen.
He hasn’t said anything much I hadn’t heard before but I was looking to hear of Christ and the Gospel. This is just a statement of fact as I have been a Christian since 1979. I’ve heard a lot of sermons! I was surprised, maybe I shouldn’t have been, how quickly he got into the nation of Israel. He ran out of time on one sermon, not finishing he decided to come back to it the next time. I know this because we were told on the following message. So with time enough to finish that section of Isaiah 53, what does he do but launch into an extended sermon on Israel and its repentance as a nation leaving the verse I thought he was coming back to for a few minutes at the end. I do not know John MacArthur, have never met him, never spoken to him, never had contact with him in any way other than through these messages – and I think one or two of his books. So, my comments are purely based on what I hear, where it seems to me his passion lies. His sermon is therefore, as it were, his shop window.
The next Sunday (next message that is) a lot of visitors were in for the graduation (so we were told) and so he quickly did a review of the previous weeks. This was fair enough so people could pick up the series as he was by now well into it. John made statement here that I fail to understand. He said the Old Testament is full of Jesus where he could be found. It was a qualified statement but couched in inclusive language because Jesus can actually be found everywhere. He doesn’t find Jesus for example in the Song of Solomon because he says so in his Study Bible. I though his qualification was a little disingenuous.
Sadly what I’ve found to be seriously lacking in this series is little if any mention of the Grace of God. I am driving so might have lost concentration on the sermon for a minute but cannot recall any mention of Grace. Doesn’t the Apostle Paul call it the Gospel of the Grace of God. And amazingly there has been no mention of the Love of God. Surely when considering such a passage of scripture such as Isaiah 53 it would have been more than appropriate to quote John 3:16 ‘God SO loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes ion Him should not perish but have eternal life’. Another verse that should have been mentioned was in Acts 8 where Philip beginning with that very scripture preached Christ. For Philip then, the primary meaning of the passage is Jesus Christ. I found MacArthur’s’ view that the primary meaning of Isaiah 53 was the final restoration and repentance of Israel something that even a premillennial friend of mine thought was a bit weird.
His preaching is very light on application. There is no application to struggling believers, doubting believers, sinning believers.
I found the ministry to be full of the sufferings of Christ but little or nothing on why those sufferings were necessary. This is astonishing. In one place he gives a string of words and phrases from the passage about Christ being bruised, beaten, crushed, afflicted and how it’s all about judgement and wrath but doesn’t even mention how this demonstrates the love of God for poor lost sinners, and I include Christians here. I am really surprised shocked even. I couldn’t possibly condone a book about preaching the Gospel by John MacArthur – I only wish it were possible. MacArthur is greatly admired as a preacher but I just don’t get it – and I’m really sorry. I’ve listened to this series for about two weeks now each day as I travel in the car. I remember listening to Michael Horton on Law & Gospel and had to just sit in the car when I reached work in tears thankful for The Lord Jesus and what He has done for this poor undeserving sinner. Not so with this. It’s just so factual and rigid. Perhaps someone could explain to me based on this series what it is I’m missing. Am I the only person in the evangelical world that doesn’t get it – I would like to know.
I’m listening to this because I said I would. But just to remind you, I am only going on his preaching in this series – his shop window. It’s what I see and frankly I’m less than impressed.
I’ve listened to the series now and I have to admit the last one was the best of the series. He used the term God’s ‘Marvelous Grace’ and then used the word Grace again. It took to the end of the series to mention the Grace of God.
As a check I thought it might be a good idea to listen to someone else on this passage. Stuart Olyott seemed like a good idea so I downloaded the three messages on Isaiah 53 by Stuart. To be perfectly honest there was some crossover of things said but there just seemed to be a different emphasis, a wholly different feel to the ministry – if I can put it like that. On reflection it was maybe unfair of me to expect John MacArthur to be anything other than consistent with his own theology. But I reckon if he left out his references to Israel and didn’t constantly repeat himself (I know that can be a good thing) it would have taken him three, maybe four sermons, instead of ten to say the same thing. What Stuart did especially in his third sermon on Isaiah 53 was apply it. The application was very encouraging to poor struggling believers. Not every Christian is marching across the world like a colossus. Some Christians are really struggling with their own sin, their backsliding of heart and a constant sense of failure. What this passage tells every Christian is that regardless of their own struggles and constant failures Jesus Christ has died for them! Even these poor examples, and I count myself as one of them, Jesus Christ died for and will bring them through for His own glory and praise. What an encouragement to once again seek this Saviour afresh and to serve Him for the rest of our days in whatever way He chooses. And then one day He will bring me, even me to be with Him in heaven. Now that’s the Gospel of the Grace of God to undeserving sinners.
If you see yourself to be one – a poor undeserving sinner. Then Jesus tells you, yes even you, to come to Him and receive from Him the gift of eternal life because He and only He has died and risen for sinners. Jesus says in Mat 11:28 Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.
Oil painting of a young John Calvin. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The following was partly quoted and referenced from John Calvin – full reference below quote. Note: There is no talk of probabilities here. And neither should we.
From John Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion
5. Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.73 Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own Judgment or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human Judgment, feel perfectly assured—as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it—that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which to rest our Judgment, but we subject our intellect and Judgment to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it—an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge. Hence, God most justly exclaims by the mouth of Isaiah, “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen, that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he,” (Isa. 43:10).
Such, then, is a conviction which asks not for reasons; such, a knowledge which accords with the highest reason, namely knowledge in which the mind rests more firmly and securely than in any reasons; such in fine, the conviction which revelation from heaven alone can produce. I say nothing more than every believer experiences in himself, though my words fall far short of the reality. I do not dwell on this subject at present, because we will return to it again: only let us now understand that the only true faith is that which the Spirit of God seals on our hearts. Nay, the modest and teachable reader will find a sufficient reason in the promise contained in Isaiah, that all the children of the renovated Church “shall be taught of the Lord,” (Isaiah 54:13). This singular privilege God bestows on his elect only, whom he separates from the rest of mankind. For what is the beginning of true doctrine but prompt alacrity to hear the Word of God? And God, by the mouth of Moses, thus demands to be heard: “It is not in heavens that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart,” (Deut. 30:12, 14). God having been pleased to reserve the treasure of intelligence for his children, no wonder that so much ignorance and stupidity is seen in the generality of mankind. In the generality, I include even those specially chosen, until they are ingrafted into the body of the Church. Isaiah, moreover, while reminding us that the prophetical doctrine would prove incredible not only to strangers, but also to the Jews, who were desirous to be thought of the household of God, subjoins the reason, when he asks, “To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (Isaiah 53:1). If at any time, then we are troubled at the small number of those who believe, let us, on the other hand, call to mind, that none comprehend the mysteries of God save those to whom it is given.
Referenced in a Kindle sample of Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended. Part One: Presuppositional Apologetics Positively Stated, Chapter 1, God in the Dock, Section: By What Standard.
English: Professor Brian cox at Science Foo camp (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
There’s quite a spread in this weeks (26th Jan – 1st Feb) Radio Times (Weekly TV & Radio Schedule magazine) on Professor Brian Cox AKA to celebrate his new BBC series ‘Wonders of Life’. A few paragraphs below from the article show how anyone can be blind to their own presuppositions. Brian Cox demonstrates non-neutral presuppositions, and he does it so well it was worth a Blog post all on it’s own.
‘Creationists will almost certainly say his new series is rubbish, but Cox sees little point in even trying to engage with them. “If you don’t accept evidence then there’s no real point in having a discussion. Because what am I going to say? I’m just going to say, ‘Well, first of all, you have to learn to accept evidence.’ I don’t see any issue with religious scientists; I don’t share their view myself, but it’s not logically inconsistent.” The notion that the world was created 6,000 years ago, on the other hand – “that’s just absolute drivel at every level”.
Which are more bonkers, does he think – creationists or astrologists? “In a way, astrology is less annoying, because I see it as part of the entertainment business and therefore it’s not particularly problematic. But the sensible answer is they’re both equally so. It’s the ability to dismiss evidence that I get irritated about, against my better judgment, because I’d rather not. I mean, obviously there are people who think crazy things. But it does annoy me.”
Any letters of complaint from viewers who don’t believe in evolution will “go straight in the bin”. If the rest of us love Wonders of Life, though, he will take almost no personal credit, instead putting his popularity down to the role of public service broadcasting. It’s a positively Reithian argument, of which I’m pretty sure Attenborough himself would approve.’
Once again an Atheist just assumes his own bias is the correct one. Creationists (belief in a Creator) I know that are scientists examine the evidence but come to a different interpretation of that evidence. He just throws out the phrase but it has so much poured into it – as he tries to take the evidential high ground. But the high ground is already occupied by the Creator.
There’s so much wrong with the above paragraphs that it almost impossible to engage with them in the limited time I have available. I mean, unless he can accept his own presuppositions on how he uses and interprets evidence there’s ‘little point in even trying to engage with’ him.
For the record I struggle with the age of the earth and do find it difficult to reconcile what is observable with a young earth. I find there are problems with both young and old earth (Creationists) creation accounts. But what I would expect to find is unanimity on the special creation of Adam & Eve and that God did in fact create the ‘Heavens and the Earth’ even though there are differences over the mechanism He used. I would also expect to find agreement with several other Christian doctrines such as The Trinity, The Fall, Jesus, The Resurrection of Jesus, Penal Substitutionary Atonement, the reality of Heaven and of Hell, of Final Judgement, of Original Sin and the doctrine of Total Depravity, Justification by Faith Alone and many others. Given this list what does Brian mean by ‘religious’. I’m sure he will not mean any of these. What I suspect he will mean is some fairly insipid wet version, if at all of Christianity that he can easily dismiss and control – which is not Christian at all!
One problem with the article is that we just don’t know how many revisions it has gone through and how much is left of what the good doctor actually said. I do grant this.
And why doesn’t Brian ever say where it all came from. He talks about the wonders of the stars, how we are all made of star-dust but never once have I heard him say where it all came from. How did it all start Brian. I suppose it must have come from nothing and we all know that’s impossible. Given his own materialistic worldview how exactly does he explain the origin of life. If there was a spark where did the spark come from? Where did the primordial soup come from and who is the cook? Atheists can’t answer these questions but instead try to dismiss the God of the bible with a dismissive ‘show me your evidence’.
The Bible has a thing to say about evidence. And it’s found in the New Testament, Chapter 1 of Romans:
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[g] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
In other words God has made it EVIDENT. But people choose in their rebellion against God to suppress that evidence. So we bring evidence on the basis of what God has said. And the only comeback from an atheist when boiled right down is ‘I disagree’ I prefer my own opinion. And that’s it. It’s not science in the end no matter how it’s presented. it’s a conflict of worldviews, a conflict of authority.
Along with thousands of other people I received an email today from 
