Is Christianity Probable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBC Question Time

Question Time (TV series)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women Bishops – Intended Consequences?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Minority Report

Just an observation:

(en) Monitor lizards' forked tongue. (fr) La l...

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

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

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

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

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

Definition of ‘Anti-Christ’


Mao at Stalin's side on a ceremony arranged fo...
Mao at Stalin’s side on a ceremony arranged for Stalin’s 70th birthday in Moscow in December 1949.

In the last post I used the term ‘Anti-Christ’ and thought rather than just leave its interpretation a matter for speculation it seemed like a good idea to very briefly supply a definition.

This is probably one of those doctrines that continues to generate large amounts of heat. So if you are looking for someone to debate your take on the issue you will be disappointed. Leave a comment by all means but don’t expect a reply as I’m not getting into a never-ending debate about dates and signs of the end.

So for those that are sitting on the edge of your seats – here it is:

My simple understanding is that when the machinery of the State is used to persecute Christians – there you have the Anti-Christ. We don’t see it as the early Church did with the Emperor Nero, or Stalin, or Chairman Mao: but we do see the beginnings of it albeit in many cases more subtly expressed but in a sense no less powerful. Remember the purpose is to destroy the Church, and if the Church can be made to look ridiculous, or bigoted, unloving, or just fundamentalist nut-jobs it’s perhaps even more successful.

So it’s in the above sense that I use the term Anti-Christ and see no reason for the term not to be used of David Cameron, Nick Clegg, their cronies and of this Parliament.

To counter the spirit of Ant-Christ however, we have the word of the Lord Jesus where He said ‘I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’ (Matthew 16:18). Perhaps our Government will have a short-lived success but in the end it will be the Lord Jesus that will prevail – Praise God!


Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 2

Continued from Part 1. I begin with the final quote from Stephen’s lecture manuscript.

And so, late in 1660 “Foreseeing clouds to gather blackness over these nations and the Lord in the way of his Providence to threaten his churches and interest with a flood of trouble and persecution, both Mr Ashwood with the rest, endeavoured to incorporate themselves into one body before the storm did fall”.

English: Nick Clegg and other MPs
English: Nick Clegg and other MPs (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The point I would wish to make – and did discuss with Stephen after the lecture – is the fact we are seeing a very similar set of circumstances evolve before our eyes.

We have been told by the Prime Minister that Churches need not fear. But, we should not forget that David Cameron is first and foremost a politician and an opponent of the Gospel of Christ. He has no interest in Evangelical Doctrine except where it will further his interests. And, let’s also remind ourselves that just like Charles II Cameron will have ‘to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his’ Election as PM. This of course includes the Liberal Democrats led by the ungodly opposer of all that is sacred, Nick Clegg.

And so we find the following story:

A local councillor for the Green Party in Brighton is facing disciplinary action for refusing to vote in favour of same-sex ‘marriage’ in a local council meeting last week.

Christina Summers, a committed Christian, has been the target of abusive emails since making her view known, some suggesting she is mentally ill or describing her as a fascist.

She has made it clear she is “accountable to God above any political party” but Green Party members are looking for her to be expelled.

Go HERE for full story and media links. So much for Freedom of Speech there then!

And just the other day David Cameron not unexpectedly has said about Homosexuality, that ‘CAMERON ACCUSES THE CHURCH OF ‘LOCKING OUT’ GAYS, AND SAYS HE’S FOLLOWING BLAIR’S LEAD‘. I’d like to point out that the true Church does not lock out gays and never has. In fact we want them to come in and call upon God in faith and repentance just like any other sinner.

And again from Cameron – with encouragement from Nick Clegg no doubt – this story:  David Cameron “absolutely determined” to introduce ‘gay marriage’ by 2015. Go HERE for full story and media links. Here’s the fist two paragraphs:

David Cameron announced last night that he is determined to legislate for ‘same-sex marriage’ by 2015 and directly attacked the mainstream churches’ position on the issue.

Meanwhile, in a separate development, the Scottish Government this morning (25 JULY) announced that it intends to bring forward a bill introducing same-sex marriage in spite of strong opposition to the plans expressed in a recent consultation on the issue.

As Evangelical Christians we should prepare ourselves for the coming storm. It’s a time to Trust God as the dark clouds gather and ungodly policies are forced through the legal system. They have no justification for these ungodly policies other than that – they are ungodly and anti-Christ. They are the anti-Christ. If they were seekers after truth they wold not be able propagate their anti-Biblical, anti-Christ policies since without the Christian God there is no truth at all!

The conclusion of the above is – and we shouldn’t be surprised at this – the Government cannot be trusted just as it was back in 1660!

The days are upon us when Freedom of Speech is tottering over the Abyss. Why God has brought this upon I cannot say – but now is the time to ‘quit you like men’ and trust in God.

The government will do what the government will do, but will I have the freedom to disagree and call their policies ungodly. That’s the question. So far though, I do have the freedom to cast my vote with whichever party I choose – or none, At the moment it will be none, but definitely not one of the three main parties of the Greens.

Definition of Marriage and Freedom of Speech – Part 1

Back in March the relevance of one of the History Lectures is just too much to pass over. Here’s a direct lesson for us from the history of our own country. I’m very grateful to Stephen Rees for permission to quote from his lecture manuscript. I’ve edited it very slightly and the emphases in bold italics and brackets are mine, but here are a few quotations from the lecture to set the context:

…. Cromwell didn’t remove the concept of a state church.  What he did was to insist the state church must be as flexible as possible – he wanted there to be room for almost any group of truly evangelical Christians to worship within the state church according to their own convictions.  The way it worked was this.  He appointed a committee of 38 men known as the Triers.  A church – or any group of believers could put forward a man as a candidate to be recognised as the local minister.   And the Triers tried him – they assessed his suitability.  The only qualifications were that the candidate must be evangelical in doctrine and show evidence of a godly life.  It didn’t matter if he were a presbyterian or an independent, or a baptist or a fifth-monarchy man.  He could be appointed as minister of the local parish church – the local Church of England – he could be supported by public taxes, and he could lead the congregation according to his own convictions (My note: ‘his own convictions’ means according to the Bible).  Many Anglican ministers were ejected from their churches by local committees, because of their ungodly lives or non-evangelical doctrine – and evangelical men were installed by the Triers in their places.

(My Note: This system of appointed ‘Triers’ presupposed a disposition not only towards the truth of the Word of God (The Bible) but also to the belief that such a thing as The Truth existed. This is not so today. And nowhere is this seen so clearly than in our National leaders. What’s on show in the State Church and in Politicians is sheer unadulterated relativism.)

And this was the way that Bartholomew Ashwood, at the age of 38 came to Axminster.  Though he was operating within the state church, he had freedom for a little while to lead the church according to thoroughly Puritan, evangelical principles and to conduct worship according to his convictions.

But he knew that that freedom couldn’t last very long.  Why not?  Because in 1658 – since Ashwood had been admitted by the Triers, Cromwell had died.  Now the country was on the point of calling Charles II back from exile.  And Charles came from the line of the Stuarts who had persecuted consistent Puritans in England through two reigns.  Before he was brought back from exile, Charles II promised that he would allow religious freedom – “liberty to tender consciences”.  But men like Ashwood had no confidence at all in that sort of promise.  He was very well aware that freedom might be very short-lived.  Apart from anything else, whatever he promised, Charles would have very little freedom himself.  He (Charles) had to meet the demands of the powerful individuals and groupings who had engineered his return.

Ashwood and his friends were convinced independents, believing that each church should be a company of believers, governed by its members under the Word (The Bible).  Whether they were separatists, I think is unclear.  It may be that if Ashwood had been free to build such an independent church “according to gospel rule and the pure institution of the Lord Jesus” yet remain within the overall structure of the state church, he would have chosen that option.  But in any case he knew that that option was going to cease to exist.

This post is getting a bit long – So I’ll end it here. Link to Part 2.

The Olympic Ideal = Completely Vacuous

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

The Olympic Flame!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chinese Abortion Apology – but no UK Apology
From Matt’s Blog at

Reported on the BBC News over here is a forced abortion in China. Feng Jianmei was injected with a chemical forcing an abortion that took place 36 hours later.

It was kind of weird to hear the sense of shock and outrage by the BBC when their normal position is support for the Pro Choice lobby.

I’m tempted to ask ‘what’s the problem, it’s only a fetus’. We as a country support the taking – murder – of  thousands of unborn children every year. And yet, because China forces a woman to have an abortion there is outrage. We read of ‘shock over abortion photo’ yet where is the shock and outrage over thousands of children being murdered annually in the self-righteous West! Here in the UK!

There is a You Tube video of  Feng Jianmei but the picture of the aborted child is  blurred out. Why? To sanitize the full horror. We should be allowed to see the full horror of this horrible procedure. The picture above is from an excellent post by Matt at Well Spent Journey. Without the moral grounding of the Christian faith, a faith people do not want, a faith a secular State does not really want there is no problem whatsoever with murdering babies. Without a belief in God there is no such thing as Evil. There is no basis for the concept of evil without the Christian God.

See my previous post for more on this subject.

Related articles

Gay, No Gay, Ex Gay Bus Campaigns

Listening again to the tortuous BBC Radio 4 Sunday program where during the last item a lively discussion took place about the Gay / Ex Gay bus campaigns. As seems the norm these days Free Speech only seems to work one way – in opposition to Christianity. I can do no better than point you to Archbishop Cranmer for two excellent posts.

If you can stomach it go to the BBC for more: