Had occasion on Saturday to attend a 'Truth of the Gospel' Conference at St John's Park Baptist Church. Keynote speakers were Iain Murray, Editorial Director, Banner of Truth Trust, and Mike Trollope, Sovereign Grace Baptist Church. Much to encourage the soul, not the least being the hymn singing in resounding voice.
I thought I would share headline points and a few anecdotes of Iain Murray's talk on Apostasy:
Signs of Apostasy
Self Confidence of a Wrong Kind
Widespread Worldiness in the Church
* Satan seeks to blur the distinction between the world and the church
* Luther said the Flood came not so much because of world corruption but because of compromise of Seth's righteous line with ungodly line of Cain
Poor Church Attendance
* If morning service is excellent people will desire to return for evening or other service
* Horatius Bonar said "Old Rome died mad with music"
The Church Forgets the God of its Fathers
Causes of Apostasy
In Every Body of Christians there are those Unrenewed
The appeal for Success
Unbelief is Present in Every Christian
* The distinction is that a Christian is aware of the danger of unbelief and opposes it.
Conscience
* Conscience is God's watchman
* Apostasy arises when conscience is abused
When Satan Seduces
* Try the Spirits
Judgement of God
* Without the Holy Spirit Orthodoxy Dies
Our Duty in Times of Apostasy
Be Aware of Erroneous Teaching
Need to Emphasize Progress in a Christian's Holiness and Godliness
Uphold Brotherly Love Toward Those With Whom We Disagree
I hope I have done justice to the recording of Iain Murray's discourse.
The last point is one requiring more attention on this blogspot and I seek to bring myself under that injunction. Readers will see signs of Apostasy in faux Evangelicals of the present age. Certainly, one or two of the signs mentioned have been observed by this writer in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney.
Sam Drucker
Showing posts with label Iain Murray. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iain Murray. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Maintaining the Faith Involves Identifying the Enemy.
As the church slides deeper into declension one looks for and, at times, finds outposts which stand resistant to the slide. The Banner of Truth Trust has been one such outpost although I am not close enough to know how it stands today. At least up to June 1990 it stood firm. I suspect it still does with Iain Murray continuing as Editorial Director.
The following is an extract of an article in the June 1990 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal by Geoffrey Thomas concerning Stuart Olyott, Missionary to Switzerland:
"There are two services on the Lord's Day. First there is the Reformed Baptist church of 80 folk in their own building up on the third floor of an apartment and office block. From that French service Stuart and Doris drive off quickly to Lausanne's English congregation which meets in the building of an Open Plymouth Brethren Assembly after their morning service has ended (Doris says, 'His brain just switches from one language to another'). One of the officers takes the first part of the service and then Stuart preaches. He was continuing a series on 'What is a Christian?' on the Sunday we were there. In all his work. and with these many doors of service opening, like every real missionary, he is creating more and more opportunities and is crying out for help.
Stuart Olyott's present concern is with the direction of Reformed ministers on the Continent, seeing a trend which appears to be taking the Bible out of the hands of the ordinary believer and limiting understanding of its message to the technical scholar. Understanding the opening chapters of Genesis is the focus of this issue. 'What was the intention of the author?' men ask, for if he intended not to speak historically but theologically then what is found in Genesis 1-3, if read as theology, offers no problems. Ultimately, this method of interpretation is trying to distinguish between the concepts of the biblical writers and the concepts of God himself (contextualisation). Stuart Olyott accepts E. J. Young's conclusion, that 'Genesis [chapter] one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one. (3) The New Testament regards certain events mentioned in Genesis one as actually having taken place. We may safely allow the New Testament to be our interpreter of this mighty first chapter of the Bible' (Studies in Genesis One, p. 105).
Men like E. J. Young and John Murray stood firmly on such principles as that there is one meaning of biblical texts, that that meaning is the divine thought, that that meaning is discernible to men, and that meaning is inseparably tied to the jot and tittle of biblical revelation. But today there are Reformed scholars and preachers who, in the name of hermeneutics, are studiously using almost every kind of unbelieving radical criticism, albeit in small doses. As a result, the meaning of Scripture is devalued and so is the seriousness with which the Reformed confessions are held. The purpose of Christian scholarship should be to clarify and explain divine revelation and not to confuse the church. Evidently considerable confusion is now issuing from certain distinguished seminary professors on the Continent.
The central question as Stuart Olyott sees it is, What is the meaning of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1-3? The evident complexities offered by current teachers have several threatening dangers, chief among which is that it puts Scripture outside the reach of the child of God who has no formal training in rabbinic literature, middle-eastern culture or its literary genres. It would seem that really to understand the first chapters of the Bible one must be an expert in all kinds of esoteric subjects. And if one does not have the scholarship credentials that the learned national leaders possess, too bad for such a man! He cannot really know what the Bible teaches. Effectively the Scriptures are taken from God's people and are made the exclusive property of learned men.
That Mr Olyott has raised matters like this in France and Switzerland as a foreign missionary has not commended him to certain national pastors and teachers. But for him the issue is one of faithfulness to Jesus Christ. The Lord taught that God's infinite word is in its jot and tittle. The specific words of Genesis 1-3 are God's thoughts and word [Matt. 5:18]. This means the Scripture is clearly understandable to men and should be taught in its exact language and meaning to men. They should keep even the very least of its commandments and teach them to others. Jesus clearly teaches that Genesis 1-3 is not a mere sign pointing to the meaning in God's mind. It is exactly what God wants to say to us. All the finery of contemporary scholarship is not needed in order to understand the message of God. It is 'near' us and 'in our mouth'."
Pity Moore Theological College doesn't take the stance advocated by the article.
Sam Drucker
The following is an extract of an article in the June 1990 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal by Geoffrey Thomas concerning Stuart Olyott, Missionary to Switzerland:
"There are two services on the Lord's Day. First there is the Reformed Baptist church of 80 folk in their own building up on the third floor of an apartment and office block. From that French service Stuart and Doris drive off quickly to Lausanne's English congregation which meets in the building of an Open Plymouth Brethren Assembly after their morning service has ended (Doris says, 'His brain just switches from one language to another'). One of the officers takes the first part of the service and then Stuart preaches. He was continuing a series on 'What is a Christian?' on the Sunday we were there. In all his work. and with these many doors of service opening, like every real missionary, he is creating more and more opportunities and is crying out for help.
Stuart Olyott's present concern is with the direction of Reformed ministers on the Continent, seeing a trend which appears to be taking the Bible out of the hands of the ordinary believer and limiting understanding of its message to the technical scholar. Understanding the opening chapters of Genesis is the focus of this issue. 'What was the intention of the author?' men ask, for if he intended not to speak historically but theologically then what is found in Genesis 1-3, if read as theology, offers no problems. Ultimately, this method of interpretation is trying to distinguish between the concepts of the biblical writers and the concepts of God himself (contextualisation). Stuart Olyott accepts E. J. Young's conclusion, that 'Genesis [chapter] one is not poetry or saga or myth, but straightforward, trustworthy history, and, inasmuch as it is a divine revelation, accurately records those matters of which it speaks. That Genesis one is historical may be seen from these considerations: (1) It sustains an intimate relationship with the remainder of the book. The remainder of the book (i.e., The Generations) presupposes the Creation Account, and the Creation Account prepares for what follows. The two portions of Genesis are integral parts of the book and complement one another. (2) The characteristics of Hebrew poetry are lacking. There are poetic accounts of the creation and these form a striking contrast to Genesis one. (3) The New Testament regards certain events mentioned in Genesis one as actually having taken place. We may safely allow the New Testament to be our interpreter of this mighty first chapter of the Bible' (Studies in Genesis One, p. 105).
Men like E. J. Young and John Murray stood firmly on such principles as that there is one meaning of biblical texts, that that meaning is the divine thought, that that meaning is discernible to men, and that meaning is inseparably tied to the jot and tittle of biblical revelation. But today there are Reformed scholars and preachers who, in the name of hermeneutics, are studiously using almost every kind of unbelieving radical criticism, albeit in small doses. As a result, the meaning of Scripture is devalued and so is the seriousness with which the Reformed confessions are held. The purpose of Christian scholarship should be to clarify and explain divine revelation and not to confuse the church. Evidently considerable confusion is now issuing from certain distinguished seminary professors on the Continent.
The central question as Stuart Olyott sees it is, What is the meaning of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1-3? The evident complexities offered by current teachers have several threatening dangers, chief among which is that it puts Scripture outside the reach of the child of God who has no formal training in rabbinic literature, middle-eastern culture or its literary genres. It would seem that really to understand the first chapters of the Bible one must be an expert in all kinds of esoteric subjects. And if one does not have the scholarship credentials that the learned national leaders possess, too bad for such a man! He cannot really know what the Bible teaches. Effectively the Scriptures are taken from God's people and are made the exclusive property of learned men.
That Mr Olyott has raised matters like this in France and Switzerland as a foreign missionary has not commended him to certain national pastors and teachers. But for him the issue is one of faithfulness to Jesus Christ. The Lord taught that God's infinite word is in its jot and tittle. The specific words of Genesis 1-3 are God's thoughts and word [Matt. 5:18]. This means the Scripture is clearly understandable to men and should be taught in its exact language and meaning to men. They should keep even the very least of its commandments and teach them to others. Jesus clearly teaches that Genesis 1-3 is not a mere sign pointing to the meaning in God's mind. It is exactly what God wants to say to us. All the finery of contemporary scholarship is not needed in order to understand the message of God. It is 'near' us and 'in our mouth'."
Pity Moore Theological College doesn't take the stance advocated by the article.
Sam Drucker
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Hillbillies, Fundamentalists, Extremists, Puritans!
"Then I said, 'Ah, Lord GOD! They say of me', ‘Does he not speak parables?’" (Ezekiel 20:49) Such was the response of the prophet Ezekiel after the Lord God had directed him to set his face toward the south, warn the forest of impending fire which will destroy all trees, green and dry and that every face from south to north would be scorched by it. 2 Chronicles 36:15ff reminds us that the Lord God sent messengers again and again to warn Judah of the consequences of their lack of faith in him but the people mocked and scoffed at God's messengers while despising God's words.
The history of God's church is dotted with occasions of the messengers of God being opposed, ridiculed, abused sidelined by those within who preferred the errant faith and practice of the day.
For an example I have chosen the time of the Puritans in England in the Seventeenth Century. Less than one hundred years after the Reformation in England the Church had descended into formality. Nominalism was rife with pews occupied by a vast number who had no relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ while believing they did. These were they who the words of our Lord Jesus Christ "Away from me I do not know you" were to become incredibly personal and destroying.
There is a wealth of books and essays informing as to the circumstances of the time of the Puritans. For this blog I have chosen extracts from Iain Murray's ",Thomas Hooker and the Doctrine of Conversion" published by Bannner of Truth Trust in 1980.
Iain Murray said; "The religion to be found in the majority of parishes in England was not therefore the product of sustained Puritan influence. Consequently, most of the early 17th Century Puritans had to give first priority to changing what they found in the congregations in which they settled. Their sermons did not come to their hearers' ears like the accustomed tones of the church bell. They were different and one fundamental reason for the difference was the Puritan conviction that the prevalence of nominal Christianity was then the foremost hindrance to real Christianity. To evangelize those without was not the need of the hour for all the people were already church-goers, all were 'believers', and all were 'gospellers'. Since the accession of Elizabeth the whole population, a few excepted, had lived under the form of the Church which Parliament had so suddenly made 'Protestant' in 1559. Thus, in theory, Christianity was universal. In reality, to use the words of Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye, it was religion learned 'through the mere efficacy of education, laws and customs'. The faith most commonly to be found in the parishes of England was only the temporary faith of the 'stony-ground' hearers of Christ's parable; it was a religion akin to that of Nicodemus before his new birth.
Such was the assessment which in the 1620's governed the Puritans' understanding of England's need. East Anglia had probably received more of the gospel than any other part of the land except London, yet at Dedham, John Rogers often thought it necessary to warn his hearers on this point. By true faith, he says,
' .... the believer particularly applies Christ to himself truly, and so lives by him a true sanctified life, which this temporary faith falls short of. Therefore let us beware, and not trust to it, the rather because most of the people of England be deceived herewith, and go no further. Yea, most of the people be of the worse temporaries, only believing the Word of God to be true, and professing it, because law enjoins them so to do; but see how they live after their own lusts, and therefore have no true faith, which purifieth the heart. And this would be seen if any alteration of religion should come, as sheep flee from before a dog, so most of these would turn from the Gospel to the Mass, as they did in Queen Mary's time'.
Quotations of similar nature could be multiplied. At Broughton, Northamptonshire, Robert Bolton, also referring to temporary faith, believed that 'This faith deceives thousands, because they think it sufficient for salvation! When Richard Baxter went to Kidderminster, Shropshire, in 1640, and tried the knowledge of his people 'to discern what they thought of the essentials of Christianity, and of the things that Christ hath made necessary to salvation', he discovered 'multitudes that come all their life-time to Church ... so ignorant that it's hard for scholars to believe it, that have not tried. And we have found that multitudes of them will be brought to learn over all the words of the Catechism that never consider or understand the sense, much less the power and practice of what their tongues recite.'
Thomas Hooker fully shared in this evaluation: 'Most of the people. who lived in the bosom of the Church and profess the faith', he believed to be 'formal gospellers', and he refers to this situation as 'notorious to all the English world'.
It is impossible to do any justice to the burden of Hooker's preaching in Essex between 1626-29 without taking this understanding of the state of the people into account. We may disagree with that understanding - as many of the anti-Puritan clergy did, believing that it caused men needless scruples and distress - but at least it should be recognised that it throws important light upon the question why Hooker and his brethren preached as they did. They meant to trouble mens' consciences; they meant to shake their empty assurance; and they persisted in it with much personal cost. Sometimes, as Hooker once reminded his congregation in New England, the result of this preaching was that the very patrons who had introduced them into their curacies turned against them:
'Many a formal wretch hath at great cost and charges laid out himself and estate to bring a faithful preacher to a place; and when the soul saving dispensation of the Word hath discovered his falseness and laid open the cursed haunts of the carnal heart, shook his hopes, and beat all the holds he had of the goodness of his estate, and battered them before his eyes . . . if he cannot cunningly undermine the man, he would rather leave the place than live under the ministry.'
Secondly, it needs to be said that there was general agreement among the Puritans on the question how the influence of nominal Christianity should be counter-acted. Ultimately they knew that it depended upon the Holy Spirit - in whose power they put their faith - yet they also understood that the Spirit used the truth and that preachers must use 'undeniable evidence of reason out of the Word."
We here at Sydney Anglican Heretics Blogspot have constantly held that holding to the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (as has been the mainstream Christian reading through the millennia) is not a salvation issue. However, this writer holds firmly that just as a brown deadness on the tip of a leaf signals a problem within the tree, a failure to trust the Word of God in the Genesis Creation account is a symptom of a deeper problem within the person who professes to be Christian. For such a person, faith in man on the subject of Origins exceeds faith in the Word of God and because "the Word of God" is Jesus Christ (Rev. 19:13) the problem becomes evident.
Just as the messengers of God have been opposed in times past, Biblical Creationists are today opposed and ridiculed as they attempt to call the people back to faith in the Word of God. Just as the Puritans encountered difficulties and censure for confronting those in the Church of England who errantly esteemed themselves as "believing the Word of God to be true, and professing it" and regarding themselves as "gospellers", so Biblical Creationists today have to confront those in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who, in like manner, falsely esteem themselves.
By the Holy Spirit of God we will be instruments for the delivery of some from the cancer that resides within their 'faith'.
Sam Drucker
The history of God's church is dotted with occasions of the messengers of God being opposed, ridiculed, abused sidelined by those within who preferred the errant faith and practice of the day.
For an example I have chosen the time of the Puritans in England in the Seventeenth Century. Less than one hundred years after the Reformation in England the Church had descended into formality. Nominalism was rife with pews occupied by a vast number who had no relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ while believing they did. These were they who the words of our Lord Jesus Christ "Away from me I do not know you" were to become incredibly personal and destroying.
There is a wealth of books and essays informing as to the circumstances of the time of the Puritans. For this blog I have chosen extracts from Iain Murray's ",Thomas Hooker and the Doctrine of Conversion" published by Bannner of Truth Trust in 1980.
Iain Murray said; "The religion to be found in the majority of parishes in England was not therefore the product of sustained Puritan influence. Consequently, most of the early 17th Century Puritans had to give first priority to changing what they found in the congregations in which they settled. Their sermons did not come to their hearers' ears like the accustomed tones of the church bell. They were different and one fundamental reason for the difference was the Puritan conviction that the prevalence of nominal Christianity was then the foremost hindrance to real Christianity. To evangelize those without was not the need of the hour for all the people were already church-goers, all were 'believers', and all were 'gospellers'. Since the accession of Elizabeth the whole population, a few excepted, had lived under the form of the Church which Parliament had so suddenly made 'Protestant' in 1559. Thus, in theory, Christianity was universal. In reality, to use the words of Thomas Goodwin and Philip Nye, it was religion learned 'through the mere efficacy of education, laws and customs'. The faith most commonly to be found in the parishes of England was only the temporary faith of the 'stony-ground' hearers of Christ's parable; it was a religion akin to that of Nicodemus before his new birth.
Such was the assessment which in the 1620's governed the Puritans' understanding of England's need. East Anglia had probably received more of the gospel than any other part of the land except London, yet at Dedham, John Rogers often thought it necessary to warn his hearers on this point. By true faith, he says,
' .... the believer particularly applies Christ to himself truly, and so lives by him a true sanctified life, which this temporary faith falls short of. Therefore let us beware, and not trust to it, the rather because most of the people of England be deceived herewith, and go no further. Yea, most of the people be of the worse temporaries, only believing the Word of God to be true, and professing it, because law enjoins them so to do; but see how they live after their own lusts, and therefore have no true faith, which purifieth the heart. And this would be seen if any alteration of religion should come, as sheep flee from before a dog, so most of these would turn from the Gospel to the Mass, as they did in Queen Mary's time'.
Quotations of similar nature could be multiplied. At Broughton, Northamptonshire, Robert Bolton, also referring to temporary faith, believed that 'This faith deceives thousands, because they think it sufficient for salvation! When Richard Baxter went to Kidderminster, Shropshire, in 1640, and tried the knowledge of his people 'to discern what they thought of the essentials of Christianity, and of the things that Christ hath made necessary to salvation', he discovered 'multitudes that come all their life-time to Church ... so ignorant that it's hard for scholars to believe it, that have not tried. And we have found that multitudes of them will be brought to learn over all the words of the Catechism that never consider or understand the sense, much less the power and practice of what their tongues recite.'
Thomas Hooker fully shared in this evaluation: 'Most of the people. who lived in the bosom of the Church and profess the faith', he believed to be 'formal gospellers', and he refers to this situation as 'notorious to all the English world'.
It is impossible to do any justice to the burden of Hooker's preaching in Essex between 1626-29 without taking this understanding of the state of the people into account. We may disagree with that understanding - as many of the anti-Puritan clergy did, believing that it caused men needless scruples and distress - but at least it should be recognised that it throws important light upon the question why Hooker and his brethren preached as they did. They meant to trouble mens' consciences; they meant to shake their empty assurance; and they persisted in it with much personal cost. Sometimes, as Hooker once reminded his congregation in New England, the result of this preaching was that the very patrons who had introduced them into their curacies turned against them:
'Many a formal wretch hath at great cost and charges laid out himself and estate to bring a faithful preacher to a place; and when the soul saving dispensation of the Word hath discovered his falseness and laid open the cursed haunts of the carnal heart, shook his hopes, and beat all the holds he had of the goodness of his estate, and battered them before his eyes . . . if he cannot cunningly undermine the man, he would rather leave the place than live under the ministry.'
Secondly, it needs to be said that there was general agreement among the Puritans on the question how the influence of nominal Christianity should be counter-acted. Ultimately they knew that it depended upon the Holy Spirit - in whose power they put their faith - yet they also understood that the Spirit used the truth and that preachers must use 'undeniable evidence of reason out of the Word."
We here at Sydney Anglican Heretics Blogspot have constantly held that holding to the straight-forward reading of the Creation account in Genesis 1 (as has been the mainstream Christian reading through the millennia) is not a salvation issue. However, this writer holds firmly that just as a brown deadness on the tip of a leaf signals a problem within the tree, a failure to trust the Word of God in the Genesis Creation account is a symptom of a deeper problem within the person who professes to be Christian. For such a person, faith in man on the subject of Origins exceeds faith in the Word of God and because "the Word of God" is Jesus Christ (Rev. 19:13) the problem becomes evident.
Just as the messengers of God have been opposed in times past, Biblical Creationists are today opposed and ridiculed as they attempt to call the people back to faith in the Word of God. Just as the Puritans encountered difficulties and censure for confronting those in the Church of England who errantly esteemed themselves as "believing the Word of God to be true, and professing it" and regarding themselves as "gospellers", so Biblical Creationists today have to confront those in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney who, in like manner, falsely esteem themselves.
By the Holy Spirit of God we will be instruments for the delivery of some from the cancer that resides within their 'faith'.
Sam Drucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
