Satan's Advantages From Christians' Infirmities (Part 2)

This blog completes reproduction of the essay of Maurice Roberts in the May 1991 edition of the Banner of Truth Journal.

"As if to intensify our awareness to the fact that spiritual harm may spring up to the followers of Christ where least expected, God ordained and fore-warned that the traitor who should betray the Lord Jesus Christ was none other than one of his chosen apostles. This came as a surprise to the twelve when they first heard it and it is entirely understandable that they would proceed to enquire, 'Lord, is it I?' (Matt. 26:22). We are certainly not less gullible today than they were in their day and therefore we too have to take account of the possibility that those most closely associated with the work of Christ's gospel may become the betrayers of it before their course is fully run. From this possibility no one is exempt. 'Watch and pray' is our only antidote. Even then we need further to examine ourselves, to search our motives and to lay bare our hearts before the scrutiny of Almighty God.

It is awesome to see how, in the course of church history, Satan has taken advantage of the flaws in understanding or practice which God's eminent servants have had. From the brilliant Origen came the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. From the courageous Athanasius, with his respect for Antony and the life of solitude, came the ideal of a monastic Christianity. From the inexactitudes of the toweringly-great Augustine emanated the mediaeval theory of sacramentalism. From the organising zeal of Cyprian and Ambrose developed the later hierarchical structures of the papal church. The devil has proved masterful in the way he has exploited the excesses or shortcomings, the over-enthusiasm or thoughtless incaution of eminent preachers and churchmen in the past. No doubt they aimed at perfection in all things. But in that they missed the mark they gave occasion to Satan to push their errors to undreamed of lengths. This he has done contrary to their intentions at the time, but by a skilful use of their respected names and using their authority among all the lovers of orthodoxy.

Let no man think that this aspect of the devil's duplicity ended with the Church Fathers. It has gone on ever since and remains one of the most successful weapons against the church. Hence we must not only watch our weaknesses, but our strengths as well. The vices of our virtues are more generally harmful to the cause of Christ than our observed vices. It happens in all kinds of ways.

One man, let us say, becomes an internationally-important evangelist. He quite naturally and rightly seeks to bring his influence to bear on the largest possible number of people. He is sound in the basic elements of gospel truth, a Bible-lover and a man of God. He is zealous to win as many souls to Christ as he can. But a dilemma faces him. His conservative theology is resented by Liberals and Catholics. What is he to do?

The confrontational approach will result in smaller crowds at his meetings. Is it not right in the interests of reaching these very persons, to give them some say in the conduct and order of the religious services? At the very least, can some pleasant and softening speeches not be made to win their attachment to the campaigns? If the evangelist of our illustration does so (and let us believe the best of his motives) he is guilty of taking a false step and of committing grave error. By this one false move he now wields all his considerable influence and prestige in the direction of blurring the lines between truth and falsehood. But he may live and die without realising what he has done. The devil, meanwhile, is not slow to draw the threads of falsehood all the more firmly around the minds of those many thousands who, quite understandably, lionised the evangelist.

The above is only one example out of many of the way in which Satan exploits the infirmities of believers. There are applications to every congregation, every denomination, every pulpit and every pew. We might suffer this patiently without additional comment except that in certain cases the advantage gained by Satan becomes so great that it cries out for the utmost attention before it carries everything before it.

Such a situation was reached in the last century with the rise of the Higher Critical theory. It may well be that some of those who joined in the stampede for a critical approach to the text of holy Scripture were men with grace and good intention. If so, they were tragically misled, as the sequel has proved. But we know ourselves too well to forget that we all go astray 'like sheep' (Isa. 53:6). That is to say, we all incline too much towards following others. We love a leader who will do our thinking for us and go over the new ground before us. The price we pay is that we occasionally follow our leaders even over the enchanted ground, and we may have gone some way before we realise our danger and are able with pain and humiliation, to find our way back to the path.

There is one supremely important practical lesson to be learnt from the way Satan takes advantage of the infirmities of Christians. It is that we should seek always to attach the blame for the mischief which occurs rather to him than to them. Satan is expert at starting fires with other men's matches and leaving them to get the blame for it. If our gifted leaders get us into some troubles on occasion, we must have the grace to give them the benefit of acting on good motives. That their over- emphasis or excess of zeal or want of forethought led them into making impudent decisions or to cracking the nut with a sledge-hammer, we must not forget that the mischief which ensued was far more Satan's work than theirs.

It goes without saying also that wise leadership should always regard itself as capable of carrying a good thing too far and giving a handle unwittingly to the common adversary of our souls. Our universal folly as sinners is to become too much like ourselves, to the point where we love ourselves even for our own extremes. But this is an infirmity, and one which Satan will assuredly exploit to hurt the general cause of Christ. A paraffin lamp gives a tolerably good light if the wick is adjusted correctly. But if the wick is turned up too far it sends forth only smoke. Even so do our strong points help our brethren greatly. But, if strained and stretched too far, our helpful emphases only darken the fellowship and offend the brethren. Happy are we if we distrust our own hearts enough to accept correction from those who love us in the Lord."

This essay by Maurice Roberts has lessons for many. For us here at the Sydney Anglican Heretics blogspot we must examine the effect of our zeal for upholding the truth of God's Word, the Nature of Christ and the Glory of God and be careful not to be "starting fires with other men's matches." We must be careful to attribute blame more to Satan than to those who, as weak clay vessels, unwittingly do the work of the arch enemy of Christ's church.

At the same time, those we have spoken out against, must examine themselves to see whether, as we have asserted, they have become agents for Satan in undermining the faith once lost but rediscovered by the Reformers and professed but not entirely affirmed in the 'evangelical' church today. High position affords great opportunity to influence others and when regular pronouncements are cloaked in evangelical 'speak' and a declared intention to uphold the Word of God there are many in the church who place esteem in the man acting as such. However, chinks in the armour are detectable to the astute even if the trimmings of the world camouflage and deceive many.

The 'gloss' of man is dimmed against the Glory of God and the church which survives is that church which trusts implicitly in the Word of God against the seeming strength of argument from the world or those who have compromised with the world.

Biblical history is well supplied with those who have done the bidding of Satan and the history of the church since the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ bears the same sad story. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear look and listen.

Sam Drucker

Satan's Advantages From Christians' Infirmities (Part 1)

In two instalments I propose to repeat a well written article, under the same title of this blog, by Maurice Roberts in the May 1991 issue of The Banner of Truth Journal. I shall make my own concluding comments in Part 2.

"There must be something approaching to joy among the devils in hell just as there is joy among evil men in this world. The joy of angels and Christian persons arises from their receiving news of sinners repenting and turning to God. The joy (if we may call it by that name) of devils springs from their witnessing anything which appears to damage the cause of God or to wound and weaken the witness of his people upon earth.

We suppose that the devil and his angels find satisfaction through the triumphing of evil in the measure in which such evil is promoted by godly men. That evil should be advanced by faithless and ungodly men of this world, therefore, must afford to demons a satisfaction at the lower end of the scale. But when, through infirmity or prejudice, godly persons do Satan's work for him - this we may reasonably suppose - is the pinnacle and summit of Satan's joy.

There can be no doubt that Satan employs immense resources of time, skill and effort to win over persons with influence in God's kingdom to do him service. There is more evidence in the Bible for this than one might at first suppose. The general rule of operation used by Satan, it would appear, is the obvious one of striking against God by means of His closest friends and most honoured servants. In this way Satan endeavours to inflict as great a blow against heaven as possible and to
injure God's work from the least-expected quarter.

In all this, let it be said, we do not forget that God's purpose is eternal and inviolable. But we draw attention to the love of cunning and 'subtlety' (Gen. 3:1), the serpentine and crooked (Isa. 27:1) way in which Satan is fond of working. It is this 'cunning craftiness' (Eph. 4:14) which is the distinctive hallmark of all his age-old industry of duplicity against the people of God. Satan's joy, to put it plainly, is most seen in his using God's best instruments against Himself

The above observations are surely borne out by the evidence. When Satan would murder mankind at a stroke he employed as his best ally the wife of Adam, our covenant-head. Here was the world's first and purest lady and the mother of mankind. We all fell in Adam. But it was through the woman given to be his greatest earthly blessing that Adam was induced to murder all his posterity. What satisfaction it must have been to the tempter that he got 'the mother of all living' to be the first instrument in their death! No mother's love was so perfect as hers - and no temptation so deadly as hers.

We see the same dark hand at work as soon as God had formed Israel into a covenanted people to himself. Even while Moses is still on Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, Satan is busy fostering apostasy among the people. This he does, not by means of some outsider, but by the hand of Aaron, Moses' brother, on whose authority the golden calf is made. Could any craft have been more crafty or could any mischief have been more mischievous? While the one brother serves God on the holy mount, the other serves Satan beneath its shadow. Even as the finger of God graves the second commandment in letters of stone, the very brother of Moses himself is at work graving an idol to cause the people to break it! The subtlety is too great to emanate from any other mind than that of Satan. The irony in wickedness is stamped all over with the serpent's image.

The same pattern is visible in the career of Saul, the first king. Here is a man who receives his kingship very definitely from God himself (1 Sam. 10:lf). If any man in history could claim to sit on a throne by 'divine right' (to use a phrase much loved by Stuart Kings), it was Saul the son of Kish. How ironical then that such a king should be a disaster both to himself and to the people of God! What a joy there was in hell when Saul, the anointed of the Lord, consulted with the witch of Endor and, next day, died ignominiously on the field of battle! 'Tell it not in Gath' was David's mournful reaction. It was too tragic not to be one of Satan's special strategems.

We may well suppose that the crucifixion of Christ at the hands of his Jewish countrymen is the supreme irony ever fostered by the devil. It is history's perfect masterpiece of hellish subterfuge because it is history's greatest crime and it was committed - alas! alas! - by the most devout and religious people history had ever known up to that time That some hidden, and lurking power of spiritual wickedness lay behind the frenzied hatred of the Jews is plain to every reader of the Scriptures: 'This is your hour and the power of darkness' (Luke 22:53). Our instinctive love for the Jews as a people only imensifies our sadness, when we reflect on the awful fact that 'he came unto his own and his own received him not' (John 1:11). In Christian compassion we long for the day when their insensate cry of 'His blood be on us and on our children!' will cease to call down judgment upon them and they as a people will receive the 'Spirit of grace and supplications' and so will 'look on him whom they have pierced' (Zech. 12:10) in repentance and faith.

That Peter did the devil's work handsomely on one occasion is further evidence that Satan always seeks to use the friends closest to God to do his work for him. The lessons which flow to us from the words of Christ on the occasion in question are full of solemn instruction and warning to every minister, elder, church and Christian. Christ's 'Get thee behind me, Satan' (Matt. 16:23) leaves us in no doubt that the best of Christians, the best of preachers, the holiest of saints and the most intimate of Christ's friends may, all unwittingly, do the devil's work for him on occasion. That they do it unconsciously and with the purest of motives goes far to excuse them in our eyes. But this very sincerity makes their influence all the more likely to do harm where they are most convinced they are doing only good."

Final instalment in a few days.

Sam Drucker

Providence in/as History

Just some quick words as follow-up to the two instalments of an article by Maurice Roberts in the August-September, 1989 issue of the Banner of Truth Journal under the title of "The Interpretation of Providence in History."

How many Christians today would agree with Roberts when he said "It is the duty of the church to interpret history."? I suspect the percentage would be less today than when Roberts made that statement and much less than would have been the case a couple of centuries ago. The majority of those reading this blog would also question the point of my continually making reference to the articles of people twenty to fifty years ago. It is all connected!

Our Lord Jesus Christ reprimanded the Pharisees and Sadducees for not interpreting the signs of the times (Matt. 16:1-3) and also cautioned His disciples to look for the signs of the times (Matt. 24). Interpreting the events of past and present is the duty of Christians and, in this regard, it is helpful for me to bring to readers' attention the issues writers of some decades or more ago were wrestling with so that we can relate them to our present circumstance.

Roberts rightly contends that "A man's theology always determines his view of providence." Events of the past two centuries have seen the church, by majority, giving over to the interpretation of our world and the events if history to secular reasoners. This has fed a foe weak at first but now monstrously strong. So much is this so that one is ridiculed if an attempt is made to present an interpretation of our world and its events from a theological perspective. Today you are seen as a religious extremist if you put a biblical perspective on any of the earth sciences, history, medical science (including psychology), politics etc. This scene is far removed from times long past.

In the face of such ridicule or potential ridicule many Christians and those who errantly purport to be Christian cower and retreat into a compromise with the weapons of choice of the secular foe eg anti-biblical interpretation of history, dating of early historical events, anti-biblical interpretation of earth sciences and deference to anti-theist intellectuals.

This brings to mind Roberts' citation of the contention between Elijah and King Ahab (1 Kings 18). The incident described in that passage of Scripture, an event of history, has similarity with the present situation of compromising Christians and purported Christians dealings' with Christians who remain faithful to God's Word on the matter of Origins (Biblical Creationists). The former grouping and the latter group see each other as the "troubler of Israel" (the Church). The former grouping regard Biblical Creationists as an embarrassment to the Church, the cause of division within the Church and a stumbling-block to people coming to Jesus Christ. The latter group regard the former as being encouragers of compromise and a hindrance to the Church by bringing judgement from God for unfaithfulness to His Word.

Looking to Roberts again, he said "A man's theology always determines his view of providence" and a reverse principle also applies viz. "The way a man interprets providence proves his real theology". To demonstrate this principle Roberts cites a book by Alan P. F. Sell titled "Defending and Declaring the Faith" which by title purports to defend and uphold the Christian faith practiced (in Scotland). However, the content of the book indicates the author admires and praises some men who, in earlier times, were disciplined for heretical views on Scripture.

Commencing in the earlier part of the Nineteenth Century and continuing with pace through the Twentieth and into the present Century, the providence of God in Creation is being interpreted by the majority in the Church in a way contrary to and, it is reasonable to presume heretically, by the Reformers and Puritans. Concerns such as reassigning the génre of Genesis 1, the non straight-forward reading of the passage, death in the world before the Fall and the consequent question mark over the meaning of Christ's death on the cross, the nature of Christ in Creation and Incarnate and the nature of the New Creation all arise from the way Scripture is being interpreted by the majority in the Church today. The stated concerns are riddled with heretical cancers.

Maurice Roberts, when writing more than twenty years ago, brought out some helpful points in interpreting the times for his readers then and for us today. The issue of concern over Roman Catholicism has waned in today's climate but Roberts' mention of the theological liberal's disdain for "Antediluvian confessionalism" seems to have gained greater weight of carriage today through "Antediluvian confessionalism" being subjected to disdain from so-called evangelicals.

Yes indeed, it is our duty to interpret history and to interpret the signs of the times. Declension has characterised the life of the Church in Western Society for at least a Century and this has coincided with the rise of heretical interpretation of Genesis 1 and a disjointed and exceedingly heretical understanding of the Nature of Jesus Christ in Creation and Incarnate.

A Reformation in the manner of that some 500 years ago can reverse the declension. Let's pray for that very thing, that God will be glorified, His Name lifted up and the doubters and compromisers brought to repentance.

Sam Drucker

THE INTERPRETATION OF PROVIDENCE IN HISTORY (Part 2)

This is the second and final instalment of Maurice Robert's article in the August - September 1989 issue of the Banner of Truth Journal. I thought the second instalment would be much shorter than the first. Not so! Consequently, my observations/comments will have to appear over the coming weekend.

"PROVIDENCE AND HISTORY

From what we have said, it follows that the way we interpret providence will determine the way we evaluate history, especially church history. And that, in turn, will determine the way we look at the great figures of church history and those who write about them.

It needs briefly to be said that providence and history are the same thing looked at from two different points of view. Both terms refer to the contents of God's eternal purpose or decree as that unfolds in this world. 'History' is the term we use to refer to the events of God's plan on earth when looked at from the standpoint of mankind. 'Providence' is the term we use when we are looking at the same thing from a theological point of view. Of course, many do not choose to accept that there is such a thing as providence. But that does not concern us here. Christians, at any rate, are committed to a belief in providence, which is just history, as God has ordained it and watches over it.

It is important to remember that a man cannot really understand history if he has no true concept of God's providence. It is true that he may be an expert in some details and therefore may be worthy of great respect for his erudition. But to be an authority in the details is not the same as to be competent to understand the overall significance of a period of history. An expert may, strange to say, 'miss the wood for the trees'.

One of the most remarkable examples of this is to be seen in Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, which is justly regarded as an historical masterpiece. But as an overall explanation of the subject with which it deals, it is unsatisfactory. Gibbon attributes the fall of Rome to its abandonment of paganism and its conversion to Christianity! He was simply reiterating an old pagan view, advanced by such ancient enemies of the gospel as Celsus. Augustine long ago answered their case conclusively in the twenty-two books of his polemical work, The City of God. The pagan view had virtually disappeared till Gibbon revived it in late eighteenth-century England. It is a classic case of a timeless work of history marred by a false view of providence. In that case, there was no very great damage done to Christian faith. But in other cases, great damage can be done to men's faith.

Religious and philosophical assumptions always lie at the heart of the way men write history. This point is brought out very clearly in a helpful book by Dr David Bebbington of Stirling University, entitled Patterns in History. He shows that history has been viewed from various standpoints over the centuries. He mentions several of these views: the cyclical outlook of oriental writers; the traditional Christian view, which considers history to be a straight line; the idea of progress; the theory of historicism, and that of Marxism. Perhaps we today would need to include a further view, that of historical relativism. But the essential point which is made by Dr Bebbington's study is that there are not only the 'brute facts' of history. There is also the deeper question of how we understand and interpret those facts. If those who write about history do not have a biblical view of providence, they will scarcely be able to see the events they write about in their true light.

It is very interesting to evangelical Christians to note that historians who may not share their view of divine providence are nonetheless concerned about the interpretation of history. Sir Arnold Toynbee, for instance, in his monumental work A Study of History, speaks about 'metahistory'. He is evidently quoting from the historian, Christopher Dawson, who had earlier used the word, on an analogy with the familiar term metaphysics'. Toynbee explains the word in this way:

'Metahistory is concerned with the nature of history, the meaning of history and the cause and significance of historical change. It arises out of the study of history, and is akin to metaphysics and theology. The metahistorian seeks to integrate his study of reality in some higher dimension than that of human affairs as these present themselves to him phenomenally.'

At first sight it may not seem a very important matter how one interprets the events of the past or even of the present. But no one who takes the Christian faith seriously could adopt such an attitude of indifference to the providence of God and its meaning. It is the duty of the church to explain history. The Lord Jesus Christ laid it as a sin upon the Jewish leaders that they had failed to discern the voice of providence in their day: '0 ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?' [Matt. 16:3].

Events, especially events in which the hand of God is manifest, have a meaning which we ignore only to our loss or at our peril. Admittedly, there are vast areas of providence which we are not qualified to interpret. But that does not excuse men for their failure to interpret crucial periods of history, such as the life of Christ and the early church, correctly.

The question might well be asked, do we have a key in the Bible by which to interpret events in our day? We believe that we do. The great 'benchmark', so to speak, of modern church history is to be found in the Acts of the Apostles and its inspired account of what God did on and after the Day of Pentecost. In that narrative, along with the other apostolic writings of the New Testament, we have a golden key to the meaning of all subsequent events in the history of the church - and, to some extent, even of the world. The New Testament writings show us what real Christianity is, what the church should be, and therefore what we may confidently expect God to bless and to favour on earth.

Consequently, where, in history, we find that same doctrine taught and those same church ordinances practised, there we may be certain that we see the approval of God in his providence. Conversely, where, in history, we see serious departure from New Testament doctrine and practice, there we know we see God's wrath and curse. It seems impossible to escape from this view of the matter, if we grant the premise that the scriptures are the inerrant Word of God.

The application of the principle here stated drives us towards the conviction that the religion of the Middle Ages was a grave departure from God and that the Reformation was a glorious returning to God. So much is surely clear, whatever else in providence may not be clear. But to be convinced of that is essential and it is enough. It is enough to glorify God by and enough to be saved by, if we are brought in this way to believe in the Christ of the New Testament and of the Reformation.

It is precisely this interpretation of history, however, which is under attack in the western world in the twentieth century. The classic Protestant historians, whose names were once a household word in Christian circles, are now sometimes referred to, even by evangelicals, as biased and untrustworthy writers. This is the new Protestant judgment upon historians such as Knox, Calderwood, Wodrow and McCrie for Scotland, and Foxe, Burnet, D'Augibne and Wylie, who chronicled the events of the Protestant Reformation in England and on the continent of Europe.

The argument is used that a writer like John Knox, in his book The History of the Reformation in Scotland (and the same argument would apply equally to writers like him, some of whom we have named above), is guilty of prejudice. He identifies his own cause with the cause of God. What favours his cause is praised by him as the work of God and what hinders his cause is reported as that work of God's enemies. That, according to modern writers, is not good history. It is said to be too subjective a view of God's cause and it is thought to vitiate the canons of objectivity required in a reliable writer of history.

The objection sounds plausible enough. But it seems to us to leave the most crucial factor of all out of the reckoning. It fails to do justice to the New Testament scriptures. If that religion which the New Testament presents as the truth happens also to be the religion of Knox, then it is justifiable to identify it as the work of God, and its opponents as the enemies of God. The only way to invalidate this conclusion, surely, is to demonstrate that Knox's message and the message of the New Testament were not substantially the same. Knox believed that they were the same. Hence the explanation for his confidence.

The real reason why modern Protestants apologise for Knox's manner of writing history, we strongly suspect, is that they are no longer in sympathy with the theology which he held. It looks very much like being 'ashamed of the gospel' [Rom. 1:16], albeit in a sophisticated way.

There is a corollary to the claim made by early Protestants that the Reformation was a glorious work of God's providence. It is this, that God's blessing must be expected to rest on nations embracing the Reformation teachings and his displeasure to follow nations which turn from those teachings.

Whatever view one holds of the rights and wrongs of British Rule (and both were there) in the days when this country was in its prime, it cannot be denied that the collapse of our national power went hand in hand with the collapse of our Protestant religion. Sir Arnold Toynbee, to whom we have referred, lived to witness both the high water-mark of British power in 1897 and its decline by the year 1972, just seventy-five years later. The dates are significant in that they correspond closely with the decline of the British pulpit. This fact surely illustrates the proverb: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a reproach to any people' [Prov. 14:24]. The curse has not come without a cause. Do we need to look any further afield for our metahistory of the period?

OUR BACKSLIDDEN PROTESTANTISM

Generally speaking, it would appear to be true to say that the backsliding of Britain (and probably of America and some other Anglo Saxon countries belonging to the Protestant family) has taken place in two Stages. As a nation, we rejected the theology of the Reformation about the time of the First World War, and the morality of the Reformation at, or just after, the Second World War. The New Morality and the 'permissive society' appeared in the early 1960s at about the same time. Since then, there has been a marked shift downwards in this country. That is not to deny that there has been, more recently, a recovery of the Reformed faith. But the impact of this movement, intensely promising as it is, is as yet only very small. The point we make here is that society as a whole, and the church as a whole, has sunk Steadily further from righteousness and from God. And, until God sends upon us the blessing of true revival, we can only continue to sink still further.

Of the many contributory causes to this state of national decline, we may here mention just three. We believe one to be the secularisation of our national school system after the passing of the Education Acts of 1870 (England and Wales) and 1872 (Scotland). After the implementation of these Acts, our day schools, many of which had before been in the hands of the churches and had taught the catechisms as well as the Bible, steadily moved towards a position of religious 'neutrality'. After the two World Wars, the pace of secularisation became accelerated. This has meant, not simply that religious education in the traditional sense is now only haphazardly taught, but also that the content of the history syllabus has become chronically anaemic in its treatment of the great spiritual conflict which raged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

So far do some educators today resent the New History, as it is called, that a society or movement has been started with the name 'The Campaign for Real Education'! No doubt they are dissatisfied with the modem approach to teaching other subjects too. But the new approach to teaching history is singled out in their very first pamphlet as desperately in need of improvement and modification. 'The pursuit of truth has been replaced by what is called "the form of knowledge approach", which means in practice that pupils are encouraged to arrive at confident judgments.. .while being dismissive of "facts".... That, like so much else in the New History, is wilfully perverse'. So writes the author of this pamphlet on behalf of this new society, which has the support of MPs, members of the House of Lords and other academics.

A second more powerful and harmful influence upon our land has come from eminent literary men and women, especially in the period since the First World War. Today we have almost come to accept that eminent literary persons must be irreligious. There are, of course. notable exceptions, such as C. S. Lewis. But this appears to have been the main direction taken by men and women of letters in the past sixty years.

A notable assault on Christian standards of behaviour was made about the time of the First War by the Bloomsbury Group. This was a brilliant set of young Cambridge graduates, including Lytton Strachey, Virginia Woolf, John Maynard Keynes, Duncan Grant and Bertrand Russell. They were later followed by D. H, Lawrence and others. These all had a profound influence on the country. The private morality of many of them was a shameless denial of earlier British standards of behaviour and morality. To read Michael Holroyd's biography of Strachey is to see how advanced practical ungodliness had become at that comparatively early date among some of our influential English intellectuals. It was a significant turning-point in the ethical history of this land in modern times. What we see today is not much more than the widespread adoption of their ideals and practices by persons of all sorts. But the lead was taken by these influential figures those many years ago.

The third factor which we may mention as a contributory cause of the present low ebb in our country is the rise of Roman Catholicism to a position of importance and influence unparalleled since the Reformation. This influence extends not only to many aspects of our national life but also to the life of churches and denominations. It is a sobering thought that many of the crucial discussions and heart searchings we face as Protestant churches in this country at this hour have something or other to do with our attitude to the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. That is so whether one belongs to a church which is Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist or of some other denomination. It is a subject which we could ponder for a long time. But the fact is there and it must surely strike us as significant.

Our subject required of us that we should attempt to interpret the providence of God in history. Is there any one great practical issue which such a survey draws particular attention to? We believe that there is. The most urgent question of all for the present-day churches, in our considered opinion, is this: Were the old Protestant historians and theologians right to regard the Roman Catholic Church as no true church and to identify the Papacy with the Antichrist? Let us remember
that they were, for the most part, men of profound erudition and spirituality - men such as Calvin, Owen, Turrettine, Edwards, Cunningham and Charles Hodge. Let us further bear in mind that they claimed that their view of Rome was drawn from Holy Scripture.

Our reason for singling out this one issue is easily stated The twentieth-century Protestant church clung, by and large, to the anti-papal clauses in its creed. The present-day churches have, by and large, discarded them. This change in attitude appears to have begun somewhere around the First World War. The way Protestant churches view union with Rome is going to be momentously important from now on.

If the Catholic Church is not the Antichrist of Scripture as the old Protestant writers affirmed it to be, then there is ultimately no reason in principle why our Protestant churches should not return and reunite - if not this century, at least at some time in the future. But if the Reformers were right, then union with Rome is apostasy.

Precisely how and why Protestantism in this century came to hold a more relaxed attitude to Catholicism is one of the most intriguing, not to say burning, questions raised by the subject we have looked at.

It would make a good theme for research. Indeed, it ought to compel the attention of every Protestant who takes seriously the events of this hour."

Comments in a few days.

Sam Drucker

THE INTERPRETATION OF PROVIDENCE IN HISTORY (Part 1)

The following is the first of two instalments of a helpful article by Maurice Roberts, Editor, in the August-September, 1989, issue of the Banner of Truth Journal (which was a lecture given earlier, April 1989, at the Leicester Minister's Conderence). Apologies for the length of the two instalments (of equal length) but it is helpful to see an Interpretation of the Times some twenty years ago, evaluate it in the light of the present situation and draw out some observations. The article follows herewith:

'And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, And thou he that troubleth Israel? And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father's house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim' [1 Kings 18:17-18]

The occurrence of the word 'interpretation' in the title of this paper informs us at once that we are in the realm of applied, rather than theoretical or abstract theology. All sciences have their theoretical and their applied aspects. This is true of theology, which, in better days, was regarded as the 'queen of the sciences'. What follows, therefore, is not so much a statement as an argument, or a case. It is an attempt to develop an interpretation of God's providence in history which is true to the scriptures and practically relevant to the pastoral needs of God's people in the times through which we are passing.

The general theme of providence is that of God's sovereign and perfect control of all events. There is a natural division of the subject into two aspects: the providence of God in the lives of individuals, and God's providence over nations and over civilisation as a whole. Perhaps it would be convenient to give descriptive terms to these two distinct, thought related, ways of studying God's providence. We could speak of micro-providence as that which concerns the individual, and macro-
providence as that which relates to the larger units of mankind in history. It is with the latter that we are concerned here, and especially with the Christian church in the Anglo-Saxon world.

It needs to be said that the literature which deals with this subject is at one and the same time vast and yet sparse. Whilst all works of history and biography have some tangential connection with the theme, yet books which deal directly and specifically with this subject are, to our knowledge, few in number. That is not altogether surprising because the exercise of interpreting providence is essentially a religious and spiritual, rather than a purely historical, one. It is a task which we can only begin with any degree of realism, once we have accepted the great (and nowadays highly unpopular) postulate, that God is truly known only in the Christian scriptures and that history has ethical and spiritual meaning because it is the unfolding of a divine purpose.

Such a great spiritual classic as Flavel's treatise on Providence, therefore, will not help us greatly, because it deals with the more individual aspect of this theme. Indeed, most treatments of providence naturally tend to look at it from the point of view of the individual, especially that of the Christian believer. This is not true of a recent valuable study entitled The Providence of God by Benjamin Wirt Farley, a contemporary American scholar, who teaches at the Union Theological Seminary, Virginia. Professor Farley's book provides us with a very thorough historical survey of providence. That is to say he works his way comprehensively, first through the views of providence held by the great thinkers of Greece and Rome, then by the early Church Fathers, and then by the Schoolmen, the Reformers and so on, up to the present day. It is a book to which one will turn again and again for information about the opinions of writers through the ages. But it does not set out to address itself directly to the type of application of the theme which forms the title of this paper. Rather than beginning with the books, therefore, it will be better to take our point of departure from the Word of God itself.

In the chapter of the Bible which was read to us this evening, we have the great discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ on the subject of the Last Things. There our Lord is informing his people of the most notable and significant events which would occur in the course of human history right up to the very end. More particularly, Christ predicts the fall of Jerusalem, which occurred in A.D. 70, and also the destruction of the whole world at the Second Coming. From our standpoint today, one event is in the past and the other in the future. And with regard to both these momentous events, Christ says that we are to 'watch' (v. 42). Clearly, the implication is that Christians are to be awake to major events in this world and they are to attempt to understand them, at least to some extent.

Failure to 'watch' and to be awake to what God is doing in the course of history is, according to Christ's warning, both foolish and dangerous. This is supremely true of the unbelieving world. But it is also true of God's own people. If we do not 'watch', then we are likely to become either complacent or, alternatively, discouraged. Events in the external world are integrally related to the words of holy scripture. To be ignorant of scripture is to be unprepared for what God is doing in history. To be unprepared at the end, when Christ returns, is to lose our soul eternally.

Furthermore, the view we take of events between our own day and the end of the world will inevitably have a considerable effect upon our whole state of mind as Christians. If we look for nothing in the future but gloom and declension, then we shall be pessimistic as to the degree of success which preaching and missionary endeavour will have on earth. But if we have an optimistic eschatology, we shall be correspondingly affected in our outlook and in our expectation of coming blessing. This is particularly true of the way in which we interpret the passage in Romans 11, respecting the 'mystery' of Israel. Admittedly, it may amount to no more than our state of mind as we set to work in the task of proclaiming the gospel and praying for its success. But our morale is very important. The overall view of providence which we adopt will have a close bearing on our morale and our degree of expectation in God's work.

SOME BIBLICAL INSIGHTS

The short passage of scripture from 1 Kings 18, which is provided at the head of this article, appears to be of considerable significance for the subject in hand. It consists of a snatch of conversation between the great prophet Elijah and the infamous King Ahab. There had been a serious state of drought in the kingdom for three and a half years. Each man, interestingly enough, blamed the other for the troubles, evidently for exactly reverse reasons.

Ahab's point of view was that Elijah had interrupted the peace and happiness of the land by praying down God's judgement. Elijah's opinion of the matter was that Ahab's idolatry had been the real cause of ruin to the land. It is an instructive exchange between a man of God and a man of the world. To the worldly man, it is the 'sour churchman' who spoils life. To the man of God, it is the reckless sinner who ruins the world by bringing God's curse upon a land. In Ahab's opinion, Israel was his kingdom and Elijah was a nuisance. In Elijah's judgement. Israel was God's theocratic kingdom and Ahab was a thorn in its flesh. It is a notable case of two opposing interpretations of providence.

There is a point of major importance to be noticed in this exchange between Ahab and Elijah. A man's theology always determines his view of providence. It must be so and it cannot be otherwise. What we think of God must determine our interpretation of what we see all around us, both in the church and in the world. This principle is to be found everywhere in the Bible. If we apply the principle to our modem situation, especially in Britain, we shall see that the principle is both a true and a useful one. Who, it might be asked, are the 'troublers of Israel' in Britain today? Every man answers instinctively in terms of his own theology. The Ecumenical finds the 'troublers of Israel' in those who will not lay aside every doctrinal difference and 'heal the wounds in the body of Christ'. The Charismatic blames the church's troubles on those who decline to seek the 'gifts'. The theologically liberal trace the modern church's malady to the presence still on earth of an 'antediluvian confessionalism'. The Evangelical and the Calvinist diagnose the church's ills as the judgment of God upon theological unfaithfulness and departure from Scripture.

This principle holds good also in its reverse form. The way a man interprets providence proves his real theology. This is illustrated interestingly by a recently published book, entitled Defending and Declaring the Faith. From the title, one would expect to find that the orthodox creed of evangelical religion was being set forth and defended. The author looks at the life and thoughts of eight well known Scottish theologians and preachers between 1860 and 1920. It is valuable as a summary of thought of such men as Kennedy of Dingwall. John Caird, A. B. Bruce and James Denney. But what is surprising to the evangelical reader is a comparison between the title of the book and the foreword, the author of which admires and praises John McLeod Campbell, Thomas Erskine of Linlathen, and Edward Irving. Yet all three of these men, far from defending the faith, were disciplined for unorthodoxy by the nineteenth century Scottish church to which they belonged. It is a remarkable instance of hiatus between the title of a book and its message. What today is being called the church's remedy was, in better days, treated as heresy.

This brings us to a further point in the church's duty in a time of judgment and declension - to enquire after the real cause of the trouble. A generation which makes a false diagnosis of the church's ills may land the church in apostasy. 'Whom God will destroy he first makes mad'. There are repeated warnings in the prophets against the folly of either not heeding, or else misinterpreting, the omens of providence. (Cf Isa. 22:12-14; Jer. 23:16-17; Ezek. 22:28-30). This is what Ezekiel caustically terms 'daubing the wall with untempered mortar' [Ezek. 22:28], which he defines as 'seeing false burdens and causes of banishment' [Lam. 2:14]. In the New Testament, Christ refers to this same sin as a culpable failure to 'discern the signs of the times' [Matt. 16:3].

Whatever be the true causes of the church's steep decline in Britain in our generation, there is no denying that the decline is there. There is a worm at the root of the tree which threatens not the leaf or the blossom only, but the very existence of the tree itself. Britain has no patent rights to the gospel of Christ. The church of Christ as such cannot be lost. But national churches can be lost. The Jewish church in Palestine was lost for hundreds of years after A.D. 70. Much the same happened to North Africa and Turkey at later periods in history. We had better diagnose the cause of our modem ills correctly. Failure to do so might plunge our nation into darkness for centuries. If we see the cause. there is hope that we may repent in time. But who will repent of unrecognised sin? The fearful possibility is that we may already be past hope, because God has given our church leaders over to a reprobate mind. God forbid that it should be so. But the situation is urgent. And it is made all the more urgent in that key concepts of God's providence are out of favour.

SOME 'LOST' CONCEPTS

In the modern church, there are a number of concepts relating to providence which are in danger of being lost for one reason or another. They are concepts which are to be found in the Word of God and which were cherished in better ages of the church. Their loss in the modern church has made us spiritually weaker and less able to wrestle with God for a return of his favour. We may look briefly at four such lost concepts.

1. The concept of a 'model age'. Not in an absolute sense, certainly, but in a limited sense, there are 'model ages' of the church. By that, we mean that, in some ages, God is powerfully and wonderfully at work on earth in sending revival, reformation and influential preachers of the gospel. At other ages there is a dryness and a deadness, even on good and orthodox men. It is true, of course, that the church in apostolic times is the only 'model' church in an absolute sense. There we have the inspired men and the blueprint of what the gospel and the church ought to be. But if we see all subsequent church history as nothing more than monotonous shades of grey, we have a false idea of church history. The fact is that some ages have been rich in spiritual greatness while others have been lifeless and dead. It is possibly the influence of Brethrenism which has led to a disparaging attitude towards such golden ages of the church as the Reformation, the Covenanting and Puritan era and the period of the Evangelical Awakening. Such ages do come. If we do not believe in them, how can we begin to pray for such an age to dawn on our country again?

2. The idea that God must be glorified on earth. That God is to be glorified is a belief common to all Christians. But that God is to be glorified on earth, by our obedience and faithfulness, is by no means the common creed of all believers as it should be. The point is well illustrated in an anecdote which has come down to us from Scottish Covenanting times. A conforming Christian put the question to a Covenanter as to why he should suffer such 'unnecessary' trials. 'Because', as he put it, 'I shall have heaven as a Christian and you will get no more'. To this the godly non-conformist replied, 'Yes, we shall have more. We shall have God glorified on earth There is both great theology and also great heroism in these words.

The practical outworking of the point is that carelessness in our walk, worship and witness not only forfeits God's blessing but robs him of his declarative glory on earth - an incalculable loss. Universal obedience to God's written Word becomes, in the light of this, more essential than life itself. It is an aspect of the truth which needs to be recovered.

3. It belongs to the biblical portrait of God's church on earth that its history is like a wave, periodically rising and falling. This is the view of providence implicit in such passages, for instance, as Psalms 44, 78, 106 and 126. Christ himself made it clear that this pattern would continue to the end of the world. There would be times in history 'when the bridegroom' would be 'taken away' from God's people, so that believers would 'fast in those days' [Mark 2:20]. Again, the Lord speaks of times in the history of the New Testament church when believers would desire to see 'one of the days of the Son of man, and should not see it [Luke 17:22]. Periods of revival and declension, to use modern terms, will alternate in the life of Christ's church till the very end.

It is of great importance to believers to be thoroughly convinced of this aspect of God's providence. It kindles afresh our flagging hopes to realise that, however low the cause of Christ may fall, God is able to revive it again, even in a very short time, in answer to believing prayer. The wave that falls to its trough is destined to rise up again to another peak. This concept is essential to us if we are not to sink into despair in such a day as this.

4. The fourth aspect of God's providence which is in danger of being lost is the distinctive concept of the church's history which emerged at the Protestant Reformation. According to this view, there are three clearly-defined periods of the church's history: the early period, the medieval period and the modern period.

This three-fold view of church history is a more important part of our Protestant heritage than might at first appear. It serves to remind us that for a thousand years the church in the West wandered into darkness and superstition. This is not to deny that there were good and great men in the Middle Ages. But it helps us to see the immense debt of gratitude we owe to God for the Reformers and their work. We must never allow this view of history to be blurred in our minds. The Reformers not only gave us a new principle of exegesis and a new systematic theology but also a new way of looking at church history. This view of history is to be found implicitly in the three Reformation treatises of Luther written in 1520. It is also found more explicitly in the Fourth Book of Calvin's Institutes and in Foxe's Book of Martyrs, as it is popularly called.

There are today powerful influences at work tending to obscure this attitude to church history, which was once the commonplace view of Protestants. The Oxford Movement of the 1830s seriously challenged this view of providence which we are referring to. But, more recently, it has been blurred in people's minds by the misguided statements of some Protestant leaders, who are suggesting that the Reformation was something of a tragedy or, at least, an unfortunate mistake.

If the Reformation comes to be looked on as a tragedy, then Protestants will have ceased to be the real spiritual heirs of the Reformers. To give ground on a point of history is, in effect, to concede to a new theology. There are many who do not appear to see that this is the case. But it must be so. To recover out of the present state of decline, therefore, means that Protestants must go back to the older view of history which looked at the Reformation as a return from darkness to light. Post tenebras lux is more than a slogan. It is an interpretation of providence. Indeed, it implies a vital creed.

To be continued.

Sam Drucker

Peace on Earth to All Men!

Very few who take to the pulpit in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney could be called Preachers. They are more aptly to be called Teachers. We are not in an age blessed with men who preach with power and unction. However, there are certain principles which ought to apply equally to Preachers and Teachers.

What Maurice Roberts, former Editor of the Banner of Truth journal, had to say on "Acceptable Service" in the July 1989 edition of the journal has as much importance to Teachers in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney today as to Preachers in any age. He said this:

"Preachers, more than all other Christians, are to be concerned with faithfulness in their service. They are stewards of the gospel 'mysteries' [1 Cor. 4:1] and hence they are to remember above all men that 'it is required in stewards that a man be found faithful' [1 Cor. 4:2]. To become a preacher is to become, at least in principle, a martyr. This must be so because the preacher's duty is to say to men what they most need to hear but least wish to hear. Men are intensely sensitive about their religious sins and they deeply resent exposure in those things in which they most flatter themselves that they are acceptable to God.

The preacher's task is to take the lion by the beard and the wolf by his ears. If the preacher is not courageous enough to do so, then he can hardly be said to render acceptable service to Christ, his Master. Shall Christ be faithful unto the death of the cross and yet his servants be too craven to annoy men's sleeping consciences? No preacher should let sleeping dogs lie nor sweep respectable religious sins under the carpet for others to deal with twenty years later. 'Fight the devil where you find him', is the motto of the true prophet.

It must be a sign that reformed preachers are rendering acceptable service when they are resented and resisted by the carnal in their congregation. This is not meant as a defence of ministerial indiscretion but as an encouragement to ministerial faithfulness. A young preacher is apt to blame it all on himself when the principal men and women of a congregation are aroused against him. It may indeed be that he is partly to blame. But the greatest sin might rather be in those who rise up against him because his application of God's word is all too true. Religious sinners, when cut close to the bone, can react with incredible fury and they can spit like fire at the hand which wields the sword in the pulpit.

When truth is applied faithfully, it is deemed by God to be acceptable service and a 'sweet savour of Christ' [2 Cor. 2:15], even when - indeed especially when - it brings unjust wrath upon the head of the preacher."

What a far cry from the 'club' mentality prevailing in Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney. Into the church come the goats with their carnal ideas of the world along with errant Christians clinging to carnal ideas of the world. Each fashion their own view of God. It is these who dictate the direction and order of the church. It is to these that Pastors and Teachers bow at the expense of the truth of the Word of God. There is no discomfort to be brought to their mind, no provocation of their senses. Harmony and ease of relations is the priority. The Word of God must take second place to an agreeable gathering of souls.

In ninety-five percent of the churches of the Diocese a suggestion of having someone speak to the congregation who holds to the Word of God on Origins, who maintains the position of the Reformers and Puritans, who honours the Office of Jesus Christ as Creator, is rejected as a device for division. Forgotten is the biblical principle of the Word being a sword which divides.

Peace on earth in the church is the goal, not the integrity of the Kingdom of God.

These Pastors and Teachers have forgotten what acceptable service to God is for their desire is acceptable service to men, men who submit to the world instead of to God and His revelation of Jesus Christ in Creation.

And so it is that the church continues its march to removing any distinction between itself and the world.

Sam Drucker

An Element in Spiritual Declension of Sydney Episcopalian Diocese

Christians, over the generations, have had various passages of Scripture to wrestle with to understand the mind and intent of God. Understanding the mind of God through the writing of Apostle Paul at Romans 11:26 has been one such passage.

Maurice Roberts, Editor of the Banner of Truth Trust, wrote an essay in Issue 304 of Banner of Truth Journal, January 1989, titled "The Mystery Concerning Israel". In his essay, Roberts said:

There are three principles of interpretation which need to be applied to Romans 11:26, as to any other hard passage of Scripture:

(1) terms are to be taken in their plain and obvious sense unless there is good reason to believe the plain sense to be inappropriate;

(2) the immediate context in which words are found will normally determine the sense in which they are used;

(3) every particular passage is to be compared with similar passages of Scripture. The rule of comparing Scripture with Scripture is one of the most fundamental safeguards we have when searching for the meaning of hard passages.

Roberts ultimately concludes that the Romans 11:26 passage indicated a future time when Jews 'come in'[my term]. His first of four concluding points warrants mention here:

First, we may be compelled to break the mould of our conception of the dealings of God with mankind. We all tend habitually to fall into a two-fold conception of the world's history: Old Testament and New Testament. This is natural enough because that is the form in which God has given his Word to us. But it appears from Paul's manner of arguing in Romans 11 that God in fact is purposing to bless the world by what may be termed a three-fold progression: first Jews, then Gentiles, then both together. Not till the Spirit is poured out on Israel in the future will the high-water mark of God's purposes be reached in his gracious dealings with fallen mankind.

Writers on this site have noted advocates of Theistic Evolution in the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney also advocate something of a replacement theology whereby the Israel of promise post Resurrection is Christians of Pentecost and beyond.

Theistic Evolutionists thereby demonstrate their failure to apply a formula for interpreting Scripture tried and proven for understanding the mind of God. Further, it exposes how they have fallen into the pit of ignorance which has brought them to their parlous synchretism of the world and God and resultant Cosmogony.

If Moore Theological College had been able to instruct them in the importance of applying all three principles of application to Scripture, as identified by Maurice Roberts and many before him, the Episcopalian Diocese of Sydney would not be in the state of declension currently experienced.

Sam Drucker

Angel of Light (Part 2)

This is the second and concluding reproduction of the Maurice Roberts essay in the December 1988 edition of the Banner of Truth journal.

2. CONFUSING US WITH 'LOOK ALIKE' DOCTRINES

We do not always at first sight detect the difference between the real doctrine and its imitation any more than we do between real gold and cheap alloy which looks the same. The nineteenth-century apostasy took place under the noses of ten thousand theologians, who confused scholarship with infidelity. Professing themselves to be pioneers of a deeper knowledge of the gospel, they all but destroyed the gospel. The key of Higher Criticism did not unlock the door of the treasure-house but effectively shut, bolted and barred it to men

This method of blinding us to truth by 'look-alike' substitutes is an age-old invention of Satan and deserves to be called the 'joker' in his pack. What mirth hell has had with it!

In the fourth century, the true doctrine of Christ's person differed from the false by no more than one iota. He is 'homoousios' (of one essence with) the Father, not merely homoiousios (of similar essence), as the Arians of the day asserted. These 'look-alikes' of Satan have cropped up over and over again in first one and then another department of church doctrine: faith, the Lord's Supper, the ministry, authority, the treatment due to 'heretics'. Church and State, theories of Atonement.

The needle of truth needs only to be pushed a little to this side or to that and it becomes generically different. Justification pushed to one side becomes Antinomianism; pushed to the other, it is legalism. Faith, when overdone, is fancy or fanaticism; when immature, it is bare notion or bald supposition. The Reformed view of the Lord's Supper lies in the mean between the Romish and the Zwinglian, so-called.

Long and hard has hell laboured to rob the church of blessing by such substitutions! Satan lays his cuckoo's egg in the nest and waits to see how his bastard doctrine confounds God's people. How else can we account for the way Calvinism became Hyper-Calvinism so quickly in some circles? Or true Ecumenism the false ecumenism of the World Council of Churches?

Our fathers enjoyed true revivals. But they did not all recognise that the Revivalism of some American theologians is a serious error. 'Revival' is something that man 'can do', said C. G. Finney, in his lectures entitled Revivals of Religion. It is 'the right use of the appropriate means'. Between this theory which we call 'Revivalism' and true revival there lies a world of difference. Much that claims to be a resurgence of the supernatural in the modern church is really nothing but Mediaeval superstition under a new disguise.

3. TURNING DOCTRINES INTO SLOGANS

The strength of churches is their orthodoxy coupled with their spirituality. Orthodoxy will not save churches from decline if spirituality is lost. 'Hold on to your orthodoxy' is advice which Satan will find no fault with provided we can be induced to grow steadily weaker in the love of our orthodoxy.

There are groups which venerate 'the Reformation', 'the Glorious Revolution' and 'the Westminster Confession' and yet whose adherents are virtual strangers to heart-religion, repentance and a holy life.

Every great movement tends to expire with some orthodox breath upon its lips. The Mediaeval church revered Augustine, while it systematically denied Augustine's creed. Methodism expired with the names of its great founders still nominally cherished and yet their high view of Scripture abandoned. The term 'Disruption' still held for Scottish ears a ring of glory long after the central theology of the Disruption forefathers had been watered down into Liberalism.

The same is fast becoming true of the phrase 'the new birth'. As doctrine, the devil detests it; as slogan, it is as harmless to his kingdom as a dead lion.

The trouble is that we are generally two or three generations into a state of declension before we wake up to the fact that we have taken our orthodoxy for granted. We did not see that we had slidden imperceptibly into greater and greater nominalism. Once let our creed be taken with a pinch of salt and we can be as orthodox as we like. Satan will have won the contest with us. The rising generation of young Christians will then not deny the great doctrines of the faith. They will pay lip-service to them—and wink with amusement at the stricter way of life which once went with them.

Truth and spirituality wear out as good carpets do. The pattern is still seen when the pile is gone. Provided there is still some pattern visible we flatter ourselves that the carpet is not worn out. Thus truth is trodden by the foot of complacency until it is threadbare. Truth is reduced to a shadow of its former self It has become a slogan. What began as a living force has degenerated into a dead form.

4. ALTERING THE TRUE NAMES OF THINGS

A common piece of duplicity found in the armoury of the angel of light is the alteration of names. This is a trick of Satan's which much resembles the second point made above but which is worthy of distinct and separate treatment. A man will drink paraquat for lemonade if the label is suitably changed and he will pay the penalty for his mistake. Such is man's gullibility, that he commonly allows himself to be deceived by Satan through the switching of ethical and spiritual labels.

No words are more respectable than the famous church words 'Orthodox' and 'Catholic', for example. Orthodoxy refers to soundness in doctrine. Catholicity to our relationship with all the members of Christ upon earth. Could two more wholesome words possibly be found to describe true Christians everywhere and in all ages? But the angel of light early stamped them with connotations all their own. They first became party-words and then developed meanings the very reverse of their original sense. Historically the 'Orthodox' have sadly embraced much heterodoxy and the term 'Catholicism' has all too often been synonymous with the most narrow bigotry.

More recently, the term 'Neo-Orthodox' has been minted to describe a certain type of attitude to the Bible. But it is by no means the old orthodoxy of the Apostles and Reformers. The poison is there as before. All that has changed is the label.

Infidelity never presents itself as such. It comes to mankind packaged as 'Science'. Sodomy is not now to be thought of as the old sin which the Lord punished with fire and brimstone as a warning ever after to mankind. It is something quite harmless and 'gay'. Ministers and church people who commit it are 'gay Christians'. They are nice, harmless persons, presumably, who will go to heaven the same as others, and to whom the New Testament warnings have no relevance. O! poor, blind humanity whom Satan so easily deceives by no more clever trick than a change of label! We cannot too often be reminded that God is not mocked although man may be. 'Science', if it contradicts Scripture, is not science but a species of blasphemy. Human behaviour, if it conforms to forbidden patterns, is not excusable because 'gay', any more than that of the men of Gomorrah. And for a modern preacher to arrogate to himself the title of 'Apostle' is not to wield apostolic power but merely to rob words of their meaning and to confuse the church of God.

There is a stern judgment threatened by the Almighty against all those who change the labels and thereby spread confusion among God's people: 'Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!' [Isa. 5:20]. It is our wisdom to call things by their proper names, in religion and in ethics, as in all else.

Lovers of Christ's gospel everywhere must be aware of the mists of false charity which envelop them. Men hold out to us the right hand of fellowship. But the price is always the compromise of some truth or Other. The angel of light invites good men to swallow first one hoof and then another, in the hope they will eventually swallow the entire camel. Truth is lost by littles if men are not careful. God has drawn the lines of true religion m the holy Scriptures. We are not free to rub out those lines and redraw them. Our consciences are captive.

Written more than twenty years ago, Roberts' article bears reproduction as a warning to the Church to be alert to the working of the Angel of Light. Theistic Evolutionists, for one, should abandon the one who has led them into compromising the Word of God with the prevailing world view on Origins.

Sam Drucker

Angel of Light (Part 1)

The essays of Maurice Roberts, former Editor of the Banner of Truth Journal, are always helpful reading. His essay on The Angel of Light in the December 1988 Journal number 303 is worth repeating here in two parts because we will all encounter the Angel of Light or those unwittingly acting for him:

The Christian who is to get through this life unscathed must learn to fight Satan not only as an angel of darkness but also as an angel of light. Even the world has the wisdom to see that 'the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know'. The point is that we do not recognise an unknown enemy so easily and an enemy in the guise of a friend is obviously the worst combination imaginable. The terrorist who approaches us dressed as a policeman is the most deadly foe of all
because he has all the advantages of surprise and deceit. So is the devil to God's people when he poses as 'an angel of light' [2 Cor. 11:14] The velvet glove of hell's diplomacy succeeds where the mailed fist of persecution fails. We are accustomed to meeting Satan as a devil but not as an angel and we are trained to expect him wearing the mantle of darkness but not the garment of light.

It goes without saying that the devil's motive and intention is always precisely the same. He aims to drag God's Name down into the dust. Satan cares comparatively little for the creature. It is the Creator's declarative glory he intends to destroy. In striking at the church, he is aiming his blow at God. But because God is eternally beyond his reach and because Christ, since his exaltation, is beyond the power of temptation Satan directs his fury against the church. The church is almost all that is left to Satan to attack. It is, so to speak, the Achilles' heel of Christ, the only place where Christ is vulnerable. The world lies already in his power [1 John 5:19], So not a day nor a part of a day elapses but all hell schemes fresh attacks upon the kingdom of grace. Every move and counter-move of the devil is made with the end in view of mining God's honour by leading His people into sin.

Sin is seldom, if ever, original. The newest vices of our modern world appear to have all had their counterpart in the ancient world, and, no doubt, were practiced before the Flood. Similarly, the devil's temptations have no need to be original because the old, well-tried snares of the past are usually successful enough in each succeeding generation.

Our particular concern here is not with Satan's fiery darts' [Eph. 6:16] so much as with those subtler methods which he employs as an 'angel of light'. The twentieth-century western church is not so much under attack from Satan's bloodthirsty and brutal attacks as from his 'cunning craftiness' [Eph. 4:14]. It is all the more necessary that we should become a little more familiar with some of the tricks which belong to his 'velvet-glove' diplomacy.

1. DRIVING US TO AN EXTREME

This is a marvellously successful mode of temptation, remarkable alike for its simplicity and effectiveness. The perfection of both doctrine and practice always lies in the mean between two extremes. Christ, so to speak, is always between two thieves, one on the right and the other on the left.

It is the devil's task, therefore, to drive us to one extreme or the other. This he does, not by force of arms, but by the suggestion of serving God more consistently. The movement which extolled virginity and celibacy in the early church did so with the laudable motive of consecrating the whole of life to God's work. Marriage was degraded as a consequence and, by the Middle Ages, the monastic life was marked by the vices which result from sexual repression. The devil foresaw it. Earnest churchmen like Jerome did not.

Generally speaking, Satan will lead us along the path of temperamental inclination so that we end up by making vices out of our virtues. The man (and more especially the minister) who excels in culture and courtesy ends up in compromise. The independent thinker becomes autocratic and ends up a tyrant. The efficient congregation becomes so smooth-running that it resembles a machine rather than a church for needy sinners. What begins as virtue ends up as vice. 'Pray be more like your virtues,' says the angel of light, till extremes are reached and we undo the good we intended to do. To turn the paraffin lamp up too high gives, not more light, but more smoke. It is a common device of our adversary. The history of the church of Christ illustrates his successes in both theory and practice.

Final instalment in a few days.

Sam Drucker

Christianity in a Technology Affluent World

Once again I have been reading through my back issues of the Banner of Truth Journal. I thought readers might be interested in an essay submitted by Maurice Roberts, former Editor of the Journal. Roberts' essay was published in Issue 337 of October 1991 under the heading "Man's Modern Techtopia" It follows herewith:

"Man's technical brilliance is fast producing a society which promises to give birth to a secular paradise. The genius of modern civilisation, if it is allowed to run its present course to perfection, will bring mankind to the point at which there is everything to live with and nothing to live for. Every form of material comfort will be on hand to gratify man's physical needs. But society will have lost its soul, its sense of purpose and the very meaning of existence.

The Western world and its secular way of life is an increasingly lonely place for a Christian to live in precisely because it threatens to kill him with material kindness. There probably never was an age which intruded so benignly on the privacy of the mind and of the soul as our modern world does. The secular view of everything under the sun, thanks to the media, presses in on us, not only in the work-place and in the school, but even in the home and at the sick bed. From early childhood until we reach our dying hour the worldly-wise mentality is fed to us in generous spoonfuls. It is taken in with our mother's milk, copied off the blackboard into our earliest school jotters, learned out of countless newspapers and magazines and, in the twilight of life, fed to us in our eventide homes before we close our eyes in the sleep of death.

The supreme achievement of our age is to have banished God from the universe. No age, not even the age of Paine, Voltaire and Rousseau, did it so successfully. God, to all intents and purposes, is an irrelevance to our modern world. He is not, so we now hear, the Author of our existence, the Creator of our universe, our Father in heaven or our Last Judge. If occasional lip-service is paid in our society to such out-worn remnants of our grandparents' creed it is merely a token gesture with no more conviction behind it than if a lapsed Catholic were to cross himself unthinkingly in a moment of sudden fear.

Our modern civilisation is cruel to the Christian by its very kindness. There are no fires or faggots any more with which to burn the devout believer. A lavish toleration is allowed him. But the secular hand strokes the believer's cheek with every breath he breathes. Sensuality and scepticism caress the Christian's mind wherever he turns. Mammon frowns upon him in the streets of the town where he lives and godlessness licks his hand like a lap-dog whenever he sits down to take a moment's relaxation. The secular spirit blows upon us at all seasons like a prevailing wind and its dust settles on our minds like the fall-out from a factory chimney. The siren-voices of our age are singing in unison and their song beats relentlessly on our weary spirits with the message that we ought to forget God and live only for today

As surely as our civilised world has opted not to retain God in its knowledge, so certainly has God righteously given men over to believe the secular lie. God is not in all men's thoughts. Society is hungry and thirsty for things which belong only to this present life. The consequence is that we are now cursed with a fascination and a fixation for the things which all belong to this passing world. The words of the psalmist receive their tragic fulfilment today once again: 'He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul' [Psa. 106:15]. The general wish is that there should be no God; and so God has hidden himself from men as a just judgment on them. The penalty fits the crime. God has paid us back in our own coin. The living God is outlawed and banished from our man-made society. To refer to him in public is an unpardonable breach of etiquette. And God, for his part, is silent. His arm is not shortened nor his ear heavy but our sins have made it necessary that he should hide himself behind the thick cloud till society comes to its senses.

One cannot help being impressed with the exchange we have made as a world since the days of our Christian forefathers. They had humble houses, hard chairs, long working hours, small wages, frequent illnesses and often short lives. But their recompence was to have also well-worn Bibles, well-attended churches, believing hearts, grateful voices, loving families, hospitable homes.

Today's society has (or, at least, aims to get) television and refrigeration, fast cars and warm homes, well-stored larders and plentiful wardrobes, a confident manner and an affluent air. But at what price? It is not, of course, that these things are wrong of themselves. But they are no better than a bubble if they are sought in exchange for the higher treasures which our fathers had. The Christian sighs, not because he resents society's desire for plenty, but because our civilisation is profane like Esau and has sold its heritage for a mess of pottage. What sort of society have we become if in reality our god is our belly and if we spend all our strength for the bread which perishes?

The time was when it was a man's ambition to be mighty in prayer and in the Scriptures, when it was a shame to have uncatechised children and an irreligious Sabbath, and when a man's name was honoured because he was the conscience of his community The day has been known in our nation when education's first goal was to know the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, when to prepare for eternity was widely held to be man's first and greatest need, and when men's acknowledged ambition was to die well after an honourable lifetime toiling to glorify and enjoy God.

In our present-day Utopian society we have made provision for everything but the soul and have made preparation for everything but the hour of death. Our high-streets are a witness to our secular spirit in that they have become a market-place where everything is sold except the truth of Christ, and where men want to buy everything under the sun, but not the salvation purchased by Christ. Hence life has lost its meaning for the multitude who live in this twentieth-century Vanity Fair and woe betide the pilgrim who passes through and shows that his eyes are on a Celestial City not made by man's hand! They will laugh him to scorn and separate from his company as if he were a leper.

All through history men have dreamed of some Utopia, or ideal society on earth. Several famous and important writers have put their ideas for a perfect human world-order into book form. Plato, the Greek thinker, was perhaps the first we know of to write about an ideal state. He was followed by his pupil and rival Aristotle. Much later the idea was taken up by Sir Thomas More and then by Francis Bacon. Karl Marx and his associates did much the same in the last century in their endeavour to achieve a 'classless society'. In recent times George Orwell in his popular novel 1984 rewrites the theme with the well known character of 'Big Brother' ominously present as the observer of all men and with the sinister threat of the 'thought police' ever in the background.

All visions of an ideal world for man and his world suffer from the same sins of omission. They all leave a sovereign God of justice and mercy out of their reckoning. They have no hope of a glorious life in heaven after this one. And they have no place for a Messiah or Redeemer for mankind who dies for them and brings them salvation. We are grateful beyond all words that men's Utopias have never been permitted by God to succeed. All human kingdoms and civilisations have been transient and our own will be no exception.

Only one kingdom is eternal and its 'blessed and only Potentate' is the Lord our God. To every true Christian it is bliss to recall this fact frequently in our modern world. We are grateful to God for the comforts and conveniences of modern life. But they are no substitute to the Christian for God himself. In this the children of the world are opposite to the children of God, in that the former would do anything to make a happy world without God, whereas the latter would cheerfully do without everything this world offers if they could only have God himself The language of the believer is that God is his heaven and to be without the enjoyment of God's favour and fellowship is a veritable 'hell on earth', whatever the material comforts he enjoys.

It is for this very reason that the Christian sighs and groans so often in this modern world. The godless men of our age are straining every nerve today to turn society into a market of pleasures. The Lord's people, on the other hand, long to see it become a garden where men will once again walk with God and a sanctuary where worship and spiritual teaching are given first place in men's lives.

The believer cannot but mourn and weep today because society has made a conspiracy of silence against God. His house is largely shunned. His Word is ignored. His day is profaned. His gospel is scorned. His grace is rebuffed and his mighty deeds are culpably forgotten. In a word, all that the Christian loves is today trampled in the mire of the streets, and men love to have it so.

All over the world, however, there are men and women of God who are weary of the secular spirit of our age. Their tears are in God's bottle. Their sighs are in his book of remembrance. They are the Simeons and Annas of our time, who look for the consolation of Israel [Luke 2:25] and dream of the day when God will rise up from his long sleep like a giant refreshed by wine [Psa. 78:65]. Today they go in the bitterness of their soul because they see Zion languish and her walls turned to ruins. They have seen visions of a God who hears prayer and they pour out their complaint into his bosom.

The day will certainly dawn when the Lord our God will say to his church, 'Awake, awake, 0 Zion' [Isa. 52:1]. It is our absolute confidence that he will not retain his anger forever. Man's modern 'Techtopia' is but another edition of the tower of Babel. It will crumble and fall and be superseded—Oh! may God hasten the day!—by a better and a more spiritual age. Judgment will then return to righteousness [Psa. 94:15]. The promises of God are not yet exhausted. On the ashes of man's corrupt civilisations will be reared up the ancient kingdom of Christ in its glory once again. The 'wilderness will be a fruitful field and the fruitful field be counted for a forest' [Isa. 32:15;.

Let the darkness that surrounds us cause us to cry out to God all the more: 'God of our fathers, rise up again 'in majesty!'"

Nearly twenty years later, with more advanced technology, with greater hedonistic pursuits and Maurice Roberts' essay resonates all the more strongly.

Sam Drucker