Cranmer: Theresa May seeks to outlaw Christian street preachers.
I didn’t expect such a quick follow-up to yesterdays post about Free Speech & Religious Liberty. I was alerted to the latest move against Free Speech & Religious Liberty in our ever more Totalitarian country through listening to Janet Mefford. Interesting how our American friends see us.
The above link to Cranmer says it all. Some interesting comments as well.
Usually the week before (at least) and the week after Bonfire Night (or Guy Fawkes night) on the 5th November fireworks are going off throughout the evening. And last night proved that to be no exception. It was laughable in some ways. Here’s the scene if you can picture it. American friends might struggle to picture it though.
We are in Church, one of the members leads the Church in a time of public prayer. All the time he is praying (and right from the start of the service actually) there are loud explosions and a continuous loud crackling of fireworks going on all round the Church building. All through the singing and through the preaching there continues to be loud explosions.
What is Bonfire Night you may ask? Originally it was designated by Government (Parliament) to be a day of public thanksgiving.
The Observance of 5th November Act 1605 (3 Ja. I, c. 1) also known as the “Thanksgiving Act” was an Act of the Parliament of England passed in 1606 in the aftermath of the Gunpowder Plot.
Even though there might be some faint knowledge of the event – here’s how I read the significance: So here we are in a secular society that has all but forgotten God letting off fireworks that point back to an Act of Thanksgiving to the very God whose knowledge they seek to repress.
To be honest, back in my non-Christian days I was just as ignorant as those outside the Church last evening.
In the prayer on the right note the following prayer to God in giving thanks for the ‘Loving kindness to our Church and Nation, in the preservation of our Religion and Liberties’. Then later note further thankfulness to God that our ‘Holy Religion, which now again thou hast so wonderfully Rescued and Established a Blessing to us’.
What a contrast to our present day when for the State only the hypocritical husk of a true and lively religion remain. What a turn round from former days! The Christian Religion is under attack, of this there can be no doubt. But it is a double-edged sword because once Christian freedoms disappear it’s only a matter of time when other freedoms too will disappear. There’s a reason why so many freedom loving people want to live here – but that will change.
How the mighty have fallen! Here’s the opening paragraph to a prayer from 1606 upon the deliverance.
‘Forasmuch as almighty God hath in all ages showed his power and mercy in the miraculous and gracious deliverance of his church, and in the protection of religious kings and states, and that no nation of the earth hath been blessed with greater benefit than this kingdom now enjoyeth’.
It would be worth Prime Minister Cameron, his cabinet and government thinking on these things to discern how far we are removed from past glories and a reliance upon the grace of God to our Nation. The irony is that we as a Nation are just as reliant on the grace of God as we have ever been. But now it’s not openly confessed. Instead it is repressed.
These reflections I confess are based on one service in one Church on one evening. But I think the evening illustrates the chasm that is opening between the True Church of Jesus Christ and the sham of religiosity.
To anyone that believes in Religious Liberty, please read this address by Al Mohler.
‘An address delivered at Brigham Young University by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary on Monday, October 21, 2013.’
A couple of taster paragraphs:
Heterosexuals did a very good job of undermining marriage before same-sex couples arrived with their demands. The marriage crisis is a moral crisis and it did not start with same-sex marriage, nor will it end there. The logic of same-sex marriage will not end with same-sex marriage. Once marriage can mean anything other than a heterosexual union, it can and must mean everything. It is just a matter of time.
This is what brings me to Brigham Young University today. I am not here because I believe we are going to heaven together. I do not believe that. I believe that salvation comes only to those who believe and trust only in Christ and in his substitutionary atonement for salvation. I believe in justification by faith alone, in Christ alone. I love and respect you as friends, and as friends we would speak only what we believe to be true, especially on matters of eternal significance. We inhabit separate and irreconcilable theological worlds, made clear with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. And yet here I am, and gladly so. We will speak to one another of what we most sincerely believe to be true, precisely because we love and respect one another.
I do not believe that we are going to heaven together, but I do believe we may go to jail together. I do not mean to exaggerate, but we are living in the shadow of a great moral revolution that we commonly believe will have grave and devastating human consequences.
Here’s a news story (BBC Link below) to illustrate the bias existing in the UK. There is no such thing as ‘Neutrality’ – it’s a myth.
The National Secular Society (NSS) bemoans Christians going into schools but the default they conveniently neglect to mention is that Atheism is more often than not already assumed in the classroom. What they don’t like is their own view challenged. If they really were about ‘Equality’ then having Evangelical Christians going into schools to speak of their beliefs wouldn’t be a problem. And, there’s nothing to stop RE teachers inviting representatives of other faiths to present their beliefs. In fact, I would encourage it.
As regards Creationism – they can’t even explain how something can come from nothing (that’s no pre-existent matter). Christians do have an answer. They might not like it but they have to keep the faith of Atheism come what may. Mind you, the report will be a good attempt at getting something out of nothing!
BBC News – Religious groups ‘preaching’ in schools, claims report.
I am not an expert in Apologetics. I am not a Philosopher. I am not a high-flying high-achieving Evangelical academic either. But I can see that Paul Copan has shown, or it seems to me he has shown, that he has not been listening to the same PA material that I’ve listened to. Below is Critique No1 from Paul and my brief response to it.
First, it engages in question-begging—assuming what one wants to prove.It begins with the assumption that God exists, and then concludes that God exists. Such reasoning would get you an “F” in any logic class worthy of the name! [Note: For a broader critique of Frame’s starting points, see Harold A. Netland, “Apologetics, Worldviews, and the Problem of Neutral Criteria,” Trinity Journal 12/1 (Spring 1991): 39-58.]
While we begin our worldview examination from somewhere, universal logical laws like the law of non-contradiction or excluded middle are inescapable for assessing and critiquing worldviews. In his debate with Henry, Hackett said that without some set of “neutral criteria” that are logically prior to consent or commitment to a particular worldview, “there is no way to show that one worldview perspective is more plausible than another” since both parties are “starting from totally different assumptions.” Indeed, the statements of Scripture themselves presuppose the validity of logical laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle; they also appeal to criteria beyond Scripture—the court of appeals of historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection (1 Cor. 15:1-19)—things that were not done in a corner (Acts 26:26).
This is not good. And for the following reason. The article began with an Editors Note:
Editors’ Note: The Bible calls Christians to always be prepared to give an answer to those who ask for the reason of the hope within us (1 Peter 3:15). And so, from the very beginning of church history, Christians have publicly and privately labored to show the reasonableness of our faith against the objections of skeptics.
First off, does Paul really want me as a believer to start with the non-existence of God? Wouldn’t that be the same as expecting an atheist to start with the existence of God! This reminds me of an instance when the Mormons came knocking on my door: They asked me to pray for God to open my eyes to the truth (especially about Jesus Christ). I told them I could not do that. Because I already have the truth it would be an act of unbelief, even rebellion to ask God to show me something that He has plainly revealed to be true. Namely, Jesus is God or that He (God) exists. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” Psalm 14:1.
Copan must have missed the Editors Note because if he had read it, and looked up the full text of 1 Peter 3:15 he would have seen how first of all we are to set apart Christ as Lord. This is the first thing we do as apologists and as Christians. But what Paul is suggesting here prevents us from doing that very thing. As Dr Oliphint has pointed out several times: Philosophy must be in service to Theology. If we first get the Theology right, in this case, God exists, the rest will follow. So we must go into any discussion already presupposing the Lordship of Jesus and that God has created all things. This must be especially when the Bible says quite plainly that regarding the creation God has made it plain.
If we do not do this then some other person or thing must be Lord instead of Jesus. What this is about is Ultimate Authority. So, we as Christians are not to enter a discussion already presupposing the existence of God. Now I’m just a nobody in the Christian world but this seems completely wrong. I must admit to being quite surprised that Paul of The Gospel Coalition doesn’t want me to believe the Gospel or at least begin any discussion with that presupposition. Sorry Paul, I can’t do that.
The second reading of the Same-Sex Marriage bill was passed a couple of weeks ago but I wrote most of this on the day of the vote but for some reason didn’t post it – so here it is!
Will this vote see the end of Free Speech. It should concern any lover of Democracy, that the freedom to disagree with the Same-Sex legislation will end. I believe it will see the beginning of a Witch-Hunt to find and root out ‘deniers’ of Same-Sex Marriage.
Stonewall and other ideological lobby groups will over time entrap unsuspecting believers (Christians) into saying something that will force a prosecution. This is already happening. Stonewall, I suggest, will not rest until everyone sees Homosexual & Lesbian practice and therefore Same-Sex Marriage as normal.
I haven’t heard or read (please correct me) about any protection for individuals in the work place or any other place for that matter that disagrees or believes that not only same-sex marriages but homosexuality & lesbianism is sinful according to the Bible. There looks to be only protection for Individual Ministers & Religious Organisations (if it happens) but nothing for the ordinary individual Christian, e.g. in the workplace. Not just Christians, but anyone that agrees with the phrase “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (attributed to Voltaire) ought to be concerned. I’ll certainly be writing to my MP (and PM) again about this.
With Martin Luther then we must surely say:
“Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Where this leaves the Bible in all this will be interesting to see because the Bible teaches the very opposite of what could soon be enshrined in UK Law.
Will the Bible be outlawed? Will some passages of the Bible be outlawed and will those that believe those passages and indeed all the Bible be outlawed?
Where to now? The Bill now passes through to the House of Lords and to further scrutiny by Parliament There is then – I think – a third reading before it becomes law. The Bill will come under intense critical reading as it moves through the Parliamentary process. Whether this will be the opportunity to build into legislation protection for those that disagree I can’t say. But to not prosecute ‘deniers’ raises the question about what it was all about in the first place. It seems to me prosecutions will follow.
I do not believe the majority are for this change – but what is more likely to be true is that the majority just can’t be bothered. Apathy.
There is another possible alternative for the Church to think about. Go here to read about it – but basically the Church itself re-defines marriage and calls it Holy Matrimony.
I only heard snippets from the speeches but was struck that some MP’s said or at least implied something like: ‘I don’t believe God would be against same-sex marriage’ or ‘a God of love would not allow same-sex couples in loving relationships to be barred from marriage’ or similar sentiments. But how can anyone presume to speak for God when He has already spoken plainly in His Word the Bible.
Why anyone would want to claim the name of Christian or follower of Jesus and yet completely ignore what He has to say can only be explained by the words of the Apostle Paul as follows:
2 Timothy 3:1-9
1 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. 9 But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.
2 Timothy 4:3, 8 & 9
New International Version (NIV)
3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.
8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
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.
BBC News – Sir Patrick Moore, astronomer and broadcaster, dies aged 89.
Some years ago when I lived for a time in Bishops Castle we saw Patrick going into the Three Tuns. My friend called out ‘are you alright there Patrick’ With a wave Patrick disappeared into the pub. He was obviously a real character. As I recall however, he was also very anti Christian. Sadly he has now gone to give an account before his creator – as we all must.
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.
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/christians-fight-back-on-stonewalls.html
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/stonewall-cries-bigotry-and-grabs-boris.html
If you can stomach it go to the BBC for more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17693947
Taking a look at the Atheist Rally for Reason website makes one wonder if they really know what they are doing. The reason (there’s that word) I say this is because there are so many Christian books that encourage or use reason, so many in fact, that it might be profitable to list them here. Why Atheists think they have the monopoly on reason is a mystery – apart from them seeking to occupy that ground with the hope that ‘Joe Public’ will be fooled into thinking Christians don’t think. The reality is however, Christians lament that thinking in general about anything at all goes on far less today. The Rally for Reason is a good example.
Here’s a few Book Titles (in no particular order):
The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Scepticism by Tim Keller
Reasonable Faith by William Lame Craig
Come Let Us Reason: New Essays in Christian Apologetics edited by Paul Copan & William Lane Craig
Reason to Believe: A Response to Common Objections to Christianity by R C Sproul
REASONS OF THE HEART by William Edgar
Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith by Ronald H. Nash
The point is not necessarily to recommend the above list but merely to note that Christians do not have an aversion to reason. The above titles are only those that have the word reason in them. There are many many more books that employ the God-given gift of reason but do not have the word in the title. Whatever flag (these particular) atheists are rallying around can’t exclusively be around the flag pf reason. Their Rally for Reason is therefore to my mind completely unreasonable.
God Himself exhorts sinners, inviting them to think and to apply reason – not only in dealing with God but with each other:
Isaiah 1:18 “Come now, let us reason together, says the LORD: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.
Lev 19:17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him.
Dan 4:34 At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
Dan 4:36 At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and splendor returned to me. My counselors and my lords sought me, and I was established in my kingdom, and still more greatness was added to me.
Act 17:2 And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Act 18:19 They came to Ephesus, and he left them there. Now he himself entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews.
Jas 3:17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
1Pe 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,