About Me

Name: ValiantForTruth
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

We the people

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life’ [Galatians 6:7-8].

The Founders of the American Republic have much to say to us because the things of liberty as well as the nature of men are timeless. This culture has lost sight of both.

When the law and the gospel are lost then the first things of liberty are forgotten. Lawlessness will reign rather than righteousness; pride rather than humility.

We want nothing to do with our Puritan forefathers. But they laid the foundations of limited government in their local church governments. Many of them were Separatists from the Church of England and Reformed Baptists who wanted nothing to do with a National Church. These are the men who gave us the first amendment. They gave us the rule of law and the separation of powers. They gave us all the principles intended to limit the power of government in favor of we the people.

We think that we have outgrown our dependence on the Christian religion. The Bible is the great text book of liberty, and grace is the great principle of reformation. Without the gospel of grace rooted in the history of redemption men are lost and without hope and doomed to suffer under the tyranny of other men.

Will we as a nation repent of our autonomous reason and return to the old paths? In the days of Jeremiah the people said they would not return. In our day we hope for a better result because we live under better promises. We the people must learn again the things of liberty.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Science and morality

What does science have to do with morality? The darwinites say that their theory has nothing to say about morality. If that were the case then it would be a scientific theory. But from its origin it has always been about morality or immorality should we say.

Macro evolution (ME) confirms the doctrine of depravity. Men will believe a lie rather than face the reality of a Creator God to whom they are responsible. Their view of the fossil record denies the greatest example of divine judgment the world has yet seen.

You can deny that God created everything out of nothing, but how can you deny the fossil record? This is physical evidence that demands an explanation. Does the fossil record confirm the Genesis Flood event? The father of lies cannot have this obvious confirmation of the Bible. How best to deceive a multiple of men than with ME.

Behind ME lies the deceiver’s craftiness. It removes the necessity of a creator and man’s moral responsibility as image bearers. Moral guilt and the necessity of redemption are non issues for the darwinites. The question of why did God destroy the world with a flood of water is not considered by those held captive in the deception. It even removes the concept of the man of sin who was a liar from the beginning.

A question that should be asked and researched: Do the high school and college mass murders have a common link to social Darwinism? I do not mean that they were exposed to it, but that they took it in and it became their world view. Eventually this vain philosophy corrupted their thinking until it resulted in outward destructive behavior.

Link to Ben Stein’s EXPELLED trailer…

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In Defense of the Gospel

A Reply to the Mormons

These are a series of replies to the Mormons who responded to my open letter in the previous post. My hope is that they will read these words as a defense of the truth as it is in Jesus as revealed in the NT.  It is Mormonism we seek to expose rather than attack individual Mormons.

In general the replies indicate that they disregarded the Biblical references in my letter and they did not understand my main objection. By what authority do they accept a second testament of Jesus Christ when there is no fault in the first? This is the key question on which everything else hangs. Will Christ be our authority or not? You cannot have a shared authority between God and man…

No servant can serve two masters…He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters’ [Luke 16:13 & 11:23].

I presume to know nothing about Mormonism except what they have revealed in their comments. Their responses tell some alarming things about their religion; things that are common in man made perversions of NT Christianity. The bottom line of any religion is the doctrine of salvation: How is man reconciled to God and brought into a right relationship with Him?

All man made religions will have a works component in their doctrine that commends them to God. The Bible says that all our works of righteousness are as filthy rags. We can bring nothing of ourselves before God. By faith alone with empty hands we embrace the cross. We marvel at the empty tomb for therein is our righteousness. ‘Christ was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification’ [Romans 4:25].

I will respond to each of them in turn. Additional comments are welcome as long as we refrain from personal attacks. Show me my error from the NT Scriptures and not from your book, since you say they are one in agreement.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (40) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Open Letter to Mormons

Before he dropped out of the race I thought Mr. Romney was the best candidate and I would have voted for him. This is not about anti-Mormonism; it is about truth.

Morality alone will not provide you entrance into the kingdom of God. A perfect righteousness is the only way to heaven because ‘God is light and in Him is no darkness at all’ [I John 1:5].

Everyone at the wedding feast is given a robe by the king in honor of his son. This robe is the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to all those who rest in Him alone to cover their sin. These are the ones whose sins were imputed to Him who knew no sin when He suffered for them on the cross. [Matthew 22]

You say your holy book is a second testament of Christ. By this you imply that there is deficiency in the first. This we cannot abide without comment. The NT testimony is clear…

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son’ [Hebrews 1:1-4].

Are we to expect a fuller revelation after the great prophet has come who is the image of the living God? The coming of the New Covenant in Christ is the focal point of history. The Scriptures testify to His perfection [Colossians 2:1-9] and to the completeness and sufficiency of His testimony [2 Timothy 3:16-17].

The Bible says that the foundation of the Church is built upon the apostolic testimony, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone…

Then I, John,saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband…Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb’ [Rev 21:2; 14].

The prerequisite for apostleship is given in the Bible; an eye witness from the beginning of Christ’s ministry to the resurrection and ascension…

“…of these men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John to that day when He was taken up from us, one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection” [Acts 1:21-22].

Jesus said that He would build His church. Will you deny that He is able and that He builds it as He will? Do you find fault in His churches? The churches today are no different that those in the NT. They are made up of sinners who have found grace and are in the process of transformation. They are all imperfect people and will be the first to admit it. But they are growing in grace and desire to pass it along as best they can.

Christ has been growing His kingdom for 2 millennium. There is a great cloud of witnesses who have gone before us. He is not unfaithful to the promises. You need no other prophet than that prophesized by Moses and fulfilled in Christ.

You may call yourself a church and your leadership apostles but be not deceived, the meaning is contrary to the NT. You reject the authority of Scripture as the apostolic testimony to the Church and you reject the Christ of Scripture, who purchased His Church with His own blood and is able to build it according to His good pleasure after the council of His own will…

‘[God] put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all’ [Ephesians 1:22-23].
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (20) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Preachers of secularism

"What’s really happening here is an attempt by the Left to define evangelicalism down by moving it away from its emphasis on the power of the gospel to change lives."-Paul Edwards


Thank you for making this clear statement. Our culture depends on the church preaching a clear gospel message of redemption in Christ Jesus. The tendency of the culture is always towards corruption. If the church neglects its primary role then it becomes like the culture.

There is no lack of the preachers of secularism. They preach their atheism and their socialism as if there were nothing else. But how did we get here? On what foundation do we stand?

Western thought and culture was built on the first principles of liberty: the rule of law based on Biblical absolutes and the principles of justice; the sanctity of personal property including conscience, life and the fruits of labor. The greatest principle of all is redemption; the belief that a free church is essential to the maintenance of a free state. Political liberty proceeds from inward liberty of the heart, all depends on the ability of men to self-govern.

If freedom depends on these things, then what do we expect from the gospel of the secularists? What has their gospel wrought? All their ways lead to tyranny.

The socialist robs us of our property in the vain hope that my property will provide security for another man, rather than the principle that given opportunity each man is to provide for himself. He wants to fulfill the benevolence role of the church.

The atheist is no longer content to live in the freedom of Western culture. He has become an evangelist with the goal of tearing down the foundations. As the culture has moved away from Biblical theism, the principles of self-government give way to lawlessness.

Our forms of government will not stand apart from the spirit that inspired them. Will the church return again to its first love and renew the first things of its authority, of its role and of its gospel?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Election: Love Before Time

God's love of His Chosen People, Israel, is specifically depicted as conditional upon Israel's behavior –Mr. Prager


You say that God’s love toward his elect people is dependent on their behavior. As you say this is a god that would be a disappointment. Will we commend ourselves to God with our law keeping? God forbid!

Moses writes that blessing and cursing is dependent on obedience to the Law in Deuteronomy 28.

All these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the LORD your God…But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you” [Deuteronomy 28: 2; 15]

Now we know that obedience to the Law is dependent on a heart that loves the Law. This is why Jeremiah says, ‘Circumcise your heart’ for what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God promised to do…

I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts” [Jeremiah 31:33]. And again, “I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you” [Ezekiel 36:26].

You reference God’s election of Israel and yet imply that the Bible knows nothing of unconditional love. Do you not know what Ezekiel 16 says of the holy city?

Thus says the Lord GOD to Jerusalem: “Your birth and your nativity are from the land of Canaan; your father was an Amorite and your mother a Hittite. As for your nativity, on the day you were born your navel cord was not cut, nor were you washed in water to cleanse you; you were not rubbed with salt nor wrapped in swaddling cloths. No eye pitied you, to do any of these things for you, to have compassion on you; but you were thrown out into the open field, when you yourself were loathed on the day you were born.

And when I passed by you and saw you struggling in your own blood, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ Yes, I said to you in your blood, ‘Live!’ I made you thrive like a plant in the field; and you grew, matured, and became very beautiful.” Ezekiel 16:3-7]

God placed His affection on the nation of Israel, but not for anything worthy in her. This is but a picture of the unconditional love God has for His people, not only for the Jew but also for the nations. [Isaiah 49:6]

God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for usand called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began…’ [Romans 5:8; 2 Timothy 1:9]

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The great hope of the nations

Nothing is new under the sun. Two millennium ago the apostate church rejected their long awaited Messiah. They said he broke the Sabbath when he disregarded their man-made traditions, therefore he could not be Christ.

We are of the seed of Abraham they said. We know that Messiah will come and restore unto us the kingdom of His father David. Jesus answered them that God could raise up stones to be children of Abraham after the flesh. “Before Abraham was I AM” [John 8:58]. God in the flesh had come to destroy the works of Satan and to proclaim liberty to the captives and to establish a kingdom of which David’s was only a shadow [I John 3:8; Luke 4:18].

Jesus is not hated because of sayings like the Golden Rule. He is hated because of forgotten words like these that reveal the truth of our condition. “Though someone rise from the dead you will not believe…because you are of your father the devil.” [Luke 16:31; John 8:44]

We are all born bond slaves to the evil one to do his will. Whether we are atheists or idolaters it makes no difference. The whole world is in darkness and believes one lie or another. He is content with your unbelief for you belong to him as long as you reject the living God and His Messiah.

Christ accomplished eternal redemption when He said, “It is finished”. The great hope of the nations is that God accepted His work of redemption and demonstrated His acceptance to all men by raising Him from the dead. He has all authority to release from captivity all those who believe in Him. There is no other escape because there is no other power whereby men can be saved. [Acts 4:12]

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How shall they accept Jesus?

The Bible says that men are at enmity with God. That means we are in rebellion and will not submit to His rule. Rather, we are held captive by the evil one to do his will. How shall they escape captivity and remove the enmity when they are blinded to their condition, deceived into believing a lie and unconcerned about the things of God?

Rather than ‘repent and believe’ they are told to ‘accept Jesus’, as if this decision leads to their regeneration. Arminianism is assumed in that the implication is that men have an ability that the Bible doesn’t give them.

Jesus invites sinners to Himself…

Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest’ [Matthew 11:28].

And His great promise to those who come…

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out’ [John 6:37].

Christ has overcome sin and death. He has reconciled us to God, removing the enmity. He has all authority to release us from captivity and bring us to God. When a man is renewed by the Spirit through the ministry of the Word he will see the beauty of Jesus Christ and flee to Him in repentance and faith.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (55) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY WERE THE REFORMERS BURNED? Part 2

 

From the Book - Five English Reformers

by J.C. Ryle - 1890

But I pass on to a point which I hold to be one of cardinal importance in the present day. The point I refer to is the special reason why the Reformers were burned. Great indeed would be our mistake if we supposed that they suffered for the vague charge of refusing submission to the Pope, or desiring to maintain the in-dependence of the Church of England. Nothing of the kind! 

The principal reason why they were burned was because they refused one of the peculiar doctrines of the Romish Church. On that doctrine, in almost every case, hinged their life or death. If they admitted it, they might live; if they refused it, they must die.

The doctrine in question was the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements of bread and wine in the Lord's Supper. Did they, or did they not believe that the body and blood of Christ were really, that is, corporally, literally, locally, and materially, present under the forms of bread and wine after the words of consecration were pronounced? Did they or did they not believe that the real body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, was present on the so called altar so soon as the mystical words had passed the lips of the priest? Did they or did they not? That was the simple question. If they did not believe and admit it, they were burned.

There is a wonderful and striking unity in the stories of our martyrs on this subject. Some of them, no doubt, were attacked about the marriage of priests. Some of them were assaulted about the nature of the Catholic Church. Some of them were assailed on other points. But all, without an exception, were called to special account about the real presence, and in every case their refusal to admit the doctrine formed one principal cause of their condemnation. 

[For example,] hear what Rowland Taylor said: The second cause why I was condemned as a heretic was that I denied transubstantiation…whereby the Papists believe that Christ's natural body is made of bread, and the Godhead by and by to be joined thereto, so that immediately after the words of consecration, there is no more bread and wine in the sacrament, but the substance only of the body and blood of Christ." 

"Because I denied the aforesaid Papistical doctrine (yea, rather plain, wicked idolatry, blasphemy, and heresy) I [was] judged a heretic."-Foxe 

And therefore he was condemned and burned. 

Hear what holy John Bradford wrote to the men of Lancashire and Cheshire when he was in prison: -"The, chief thing which I am condemned for as an heretic is because I deny in the sacrament of the altar (which is not Christ's Supper, but a plain perversion as the Papists now use it) to be a real, natural, and corporal presence of Christ's body and blood under the forms and accidents of bread and wine: that is, because I deny transubstantiation, which is the darling of the devil, and daughter and heir to Antichrist' religion."-Foxe 

And so he was condemned and burned. 

 Hear the articles exhibited against Bishop Latimer : That thou hast openly affirmed, defended, and maintained that the true and natural body of Christ after the consecration of the priest, is not really present in the sacrament of the altar, and that in the sacrament of the altar remaineth still the substance of bread and wine." 

And to this article the good old man replied: -"After a corporal being, which the Romish Church furnisheth, Christ's body and blood is not in the sacrament under the forms of bread and wine."-Foxe

And so he was condemned and burned. 

Hear the address made by Bishop Bonner to Archdeacon Philpot: -"You have offended and trespassed against the sacrament of the altar, denying the real presence of Christ's body and blood to be there, affirming also material bread and material wine to be in the sacrament, and not the substance of the body and blood of Christ." -Foxe

And because the good man stoutly adhered to this opinion he was condemned and burned. 

Hear, lastly, what Cranmer said with almost his last breath, in St. Mary's Church, Oxford:-"As for the sacrament, I believe, as I have taught in my book against the Bishop of Winchester, the which my book teacheth so true a doctrine, that it shall stand at the last day before the judgment of God when the Papist's doctrine contrary thereto shall be ashamed to show her face."-Foxe 

If any one wants to know what Cranmer had said in this book, let him take the following sentence as a specimen: -"They (the Papists) say that Christ is corporally under or in the forms of bread and wine. We say that Christ is not there, neither corporally nor spiritually; but in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine He is spiritually, and corporally in heaven.” -Cranmer on the Lord's Supper 

And so he was burned. 

Now, were the English Reformers right in being so stiff and unbending on this question of the real presence? Was it a point of such vital importance that they were justified in dying before they would receive it? These are questions, I suspect, which are very puzzling to many unreflecting minds. Such minds, I fear, can see in the whole controversy about the real presence nothing but…strife of words. But they are questions, I am bold to say, on which no well-instructed Bible reader can hesitate for a moment in giving his answer. Such an one will say at once that the Romish doctrine of the real presence strikes at the very root of the Gospel, and is the very citadel and keep of Popery. Men may not see this at first, but it is a point that ought to be carefully remembered. It throws a clear and broad light on the line which the Reformers took, and the unflinching firmness with which they died. 

Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of the real presence, if pursued to its legitimate consequences, obscures every leading doctrine of the Gospel, and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ's truth. Grant for a moment that the Lord's Supper is a sacrifice, and not a sacrament -grant that every time the words of consecration are used the natural body and blood of Christ are present on the Communion Table under the forms of bread and wine -grant that every one who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated wine does really eat and drink the natural body and blood of Christ -grant for a moment these things, and then see what momentous consequences result from these premises.

You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ's finished work when He died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect and complete thing.-You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are priests that can offer an acceptable sacrifice of God besides Him, the great High Priest is robbed of His glory.-You spoil the Scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry. You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man.-You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honor and veneration they were never meant to receive, and produce an idolatry to be abhorred of faithful Christians.-Last, but not least, you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ's human nature. If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own, and Jesus was not "the second Adam" in the truth of our nature.

I cannot doubt for a moment that our martyred Reformers saw and felt these things even more clearly than we do, and, seeing and feeling them, chose to die rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence. Feeling them, they would not give way by subjection for a moment, and cheerfully laid down their lives. Let this fact be deeply graven in our minds. Wherever the English language is spoken on the face of the globe this fact ought to be clearly understood by every Englishman who reads history. Rather than admit the doctrine of the real presence of Christ's natural body and blood under the forms of bread and wine, the Reformers of the Church of England were content to be burned. 

Tags: Rome  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (41) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

WHY WERE THE REFORMERS BURNED?

From the Book - Five English Reformers

by J.C. Ryle - 1890

There are certain facts in history which the world tries hard to forget and ignore. These facts get in the way of some of the world's favorite theories, and are highly inconvenient. The consequence is that the world shuts its eyes against them. They are either cut dead as vulgar intruders, or passed by as tiresome bores. Little by little they sink out of sight of the students of history, like ships in a distant horizon, or are left behind like a luggage train in a siding. Of such facts the subject of this paper is a vivid example:-" The Burning of our English Reformers; and the Reason why they were Burned." 

It is fashionable in some quarters to deny that there is any such thing as certainty about religious truth, or any opinions for which it is worth while to be burned. Yet, 300 years ago, there were men who were certain they had found out truth, and were content to die for their opinions.-It is fashionable in other quarters to leave out all the unpleasant things in history, and to paint everything a rose-colored hue. A very popular history of our English hardly mentions the martyrdoms of Queen Mary's days! Yet Mary was not called "Bloody Mary" without reason, and scores of Protestants were burned in her reign. Last, but not least, it is thought very bad taste in many quarters to say anything which throws discredit on the Church of Rome. Yet it is as certain that the Romish Church burned our English Reformers as it is that William the Conqueror won the battle of Hastings. These difficulties meet me face to face as I walk up to the subject which I wish to unfold in this paper. I know their magnitude, and I cannot evade them. I only ask my readers to give me a patient and indulgent hearing. 

After all, I have great confidence in the honesty of English men's minds. Truth is truth, however long it may be neglected. Facts are facts, however long they may lie buried. I only want to dig up some old facts which the sands of time have covered over, to bring to the light of day some old English monuments which have been long neglected, to unstop some old wells which the prince of this world has been diligently filling with earth. I ask my readers to give me their attention for a few minutes, and I trust to be able to show them that it is good to examine the question, "Why were our Reformers burned?" 

I. The broad facts of the martyrdom of our Reformers are a story well known and soon told. But it may be useful to give a brief outline of these facts, in order to supply a framework to our subject. 

Edward VI., "that incomparable young prince," as Bishop Burnet justly calls him, died on the 6th July, '553. Never, perhaps, did any royal personage in this land die more truly lamented, or leave behind him a fairer reputation. Never, perhaps, to man's poor fallible judgment, did the cause of God's truth in England receive a heavier blow. His last prayer before death ought not to be forgotten," 0 Lord God, defend this realm from papistry, and maintain Thy true religion." It was a prayer, I believe, not offered in vain. 

After a foolish and deplorable effort to obtain the crown for Lady Jane Grey, Edward was succeeded by his eldest sister, Mary, daughter of Henry VIII and his first Queen, Catherine of Aragon, and best known in English history by the ill-omened name of "Bloody Mary." Mary had been brought up from her infancy as a rigid adherent of the Romish Church. She was, in fact, a very Papist of Papists, conscientious, zealous, bigoted, and narrow-minded in the extreme. She began at once to pull down her brother's work in every possible way, and to restore Popery in its worst and most offensive forms. Step by step she and her councilors marched back to Rome, trampling down one by one every obstacle, and as thorough as Lord Strafford in going straight forward to their mark. The Mass was restored; the English service was taken away; the works of Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Tyndale, Bucer, Latimer, Hooper, and Cranmer were proscribed. Cardinal Pole was invited to England. The foreign Protestants resident in England were banished. The leading divines of the Protestant Church of England were deprived of there offices, and, while some escaped to the Continent, many were put in prison. The old statutes against heresy were once more brought forward, primed and loaded. And thus by the beginning of 1555 the stage was cleared, and that bloody tragedy, in which Bishops Bonner and Gardiner played so prominent a part, was ready to begin. 

For, unhappily for the credit of human nature, Mary's advisers were not content with depriving and imprisoning the leading English Reformers. It was resolved to make them abjure their principles, or to put them to death. One by one they were called before special Commissions, examined about their religious opinions, and called upon to recant, on pain of death if they refused. No third course, no alternative was left to them. They were either to give up Protestantism and receive Popery, or else they were to be burned alive. Refusing to recant, they were one by one handed over to the secular power, publicly brought out and chained to stakes, publicly surrounded with faggots, and publicly sent out of the world by that most cruel and painful of deaths, the death by fire. All these are broad facts which all the apologists of Rome can never gainsay or deny. 

It is a broad fact that during the last four years of Queen Mary's reign no less than 288 persons were burnt at the stake for their adhesion to the Protestant faith. 

Indeed, the faggots never ceased to blaze whilst Mary was alive, and five martyrs were burnt in Canterbury only a week before her death. Out of these 288 sufferers, be it remembered, one was an archbishop, four were bishops, twenty-one were clergymen, fifty-five were women, and four were children. It is a broad fact that these 288 sufferers were not put to death for any offence against property or person. They were not rebels against the Queen's authority, caught red-handed in arms. They were not thieves, or murderers, or drunkards, or unbelievers, or men and women of immoral lives. On the contrary, they were, with barely an exception, some of the holiest, purest, and best Christians in England, and several of them the most learned men of their day. 

I might say much about the gross injustice and unfairness with which they were treated at their various examinations. Their trials, if indeed they can be called trials, were a mere mockery of justice.-I might say much about the abominable cruelty with which most of them were treated, both in prison and at the stake. But you must read Foxe's Martyrs on these points. Never did Rome do herself such irreparable damage as she did in Mary's reign. Even unlearned people, who could not argue much, saw clearly that a Church which committed such horrible bloodshed could hardly be the one true Church of Christ. But I have no time for all this. I must conclude this general sketch of this part of my subject with two short remarks. 

For one thing, I ask my readers never to forget that for the burning of our Reformers the Church of Rome is wholly and entirely responsible. The attempt to transfer the responsibility from the Church to the secular power is a miserable and dishonest subterfuge. The men of Judah did not slay Samson; but they delivered him bound into the hands of the Philistines! The Church of Rome did not slay the Reformers; but she condemned them, and the secular power executed the condemnation. The precise measure of responsibility which ought to be meted out to each of Rome's agents in the matter is a point that I do not care to settle. The Queen, and her Council, and the Parliament, and the Popish Bishops, and Cardinal Pole, must be content to share the responsibility among them. One thing alone is very certain. They will never succeed in shifting the responsibility off the shoulders of the Church of Rome. Like the Jews and Pontius Pilate, when our Lord was crucified, all parties must bear the blame. The BLOOD is upon them all. 

For another thing, I wish my readers to remember that the burning of the Marian martyrs is an act that the Church of Rome has never repudiated, apologized for, or repented of, down to the present day. There stands the huge blot on her escutcheon; and there stands the huge fact side by side, that she never made any attempt to wipe it away. Never has she repented of her treatment of the Vaudois and the Albigenses;-never has she repented of the wholesale murders of the Spanish Inquisition; -never has she repented of the massacre of St. Bartholomew;-never has she repented of the burning of the English Reformers. We should make a note of that fact, and let it sink down into our minds. 

Rome never changes. Rome will never admit that she has made mistakes. She burned our English Reformers 300 years ago. She tried hard to stamp out by violence the Protestantism which she could not prevent spreading by arguments. If Rome had only the power, I am not sure that she would not attempt to play the whole game over again.

Tags: Rome  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Autonomous science has no morals

‘The progress of science should be undergirded by sound moral and ethical principles.’-Ken Conner

Mr. Conner how do you expect science to be governed by ethics when there is no authoritative definition of morality and no consensus of right and wrong? Morals must be based on truth rather than opinion. In a culture that has grown accustomed to lawlessness we expect every man to do what is right in his own eyes.

Much of what is called science today exists to undermine the foundation of law and morality. If the Creation and Flood accounts in Genesis are nothing but myth, then nothing in the Bible is trustworthy because Christ references Genesis as authoritative…

But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife’ [Mark 10:6].

And again…

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man. They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all’ [Luke 17:26].

If the Bible cannot be trusted and the Christ of the Bible is not eternal truth revealed in flesh, then we agree with the culture that there is no truth. Men are limited, ignorant and blind. We cannot possibly know truth in the realm of existence and morals apart from revelation; the infinite God who is outside His creation must reveal these things in order for His image bearers to know them.

We deceive ourselves to think otherwise for ‘the heart is deceitful above all things’. How can you know that what you know about origins and morals is true?

Here is a TownHall classic to illustrate the point…

‘Those of us who support stem cell research do not believe that the embryo's from which they are derived are fully realized human beings, and we therefore do not consider it murder to harvest and try to use them.’ –TH Comment

There it is. They do not ‘believe’ that the embryo is a ‘fully realized’ human being. So it is OK to kill a partially realized person or that which is to be a person?

But what does the Scripture say…

O LORD, You have searched me and known me…Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence?…For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them’ [Psalm 139].

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Geneva Bible: The Forgotten Translation

 

http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html

 

When Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) became queen of England in 1553, she was determined to roll back the Reformation and reinstate Roman Catholicism. Mary had strong ties to Catholic Spain. She married Philip II of Spain and induced the English Parliament to recognize the authority of papal Rome. Mary met with a great deal of resistance from Protestant reformers in her own country. Mary showed no signs of compromise. The persecution of Protestants followed.

The era known as the Marian Exile drove hundreds of English scholars to the Continent with little hope of ever seeing their home and friends again. God used this exodus experience to advance the Reformation. A number of English Protestant divines settled in Calvin's Geneva: Miles Coverdale, John Foxe, Thomas Sampson, and William Whittingham. With the protection of the Genevan civil authorities and the support of John Calvin and the Scottish Reformer John Knox, the Church of Geneva determined to produce an English Bible without the need for the imprimatur of either England or Rome - the Geneva Bible.

Translation Work Begins In 1557

The Geneva translators produced a revised New Testament in English in 1557 that was essentially a revision of Tyndale's revised and corrected 1534 edition. Much of the work was done by William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin. The Geneva New Testament was barely off the press when work began on a revision of the entire Bible, a process that took more than two years. The new translation was checked with Theodore Beza's earlier work and the Greek text. In 1560 a complete revised Bible was published, translated according to the Hebrew and Greek, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I. After the death of Mary, Elizabeth was crowned queen in 1558, once again moving England toward Protestantism. The Geneva Bible was finally printed in England in 1575 only after the death of Archbishop Matthew Parker, editor of the Bishop's Bible.

England's Most Popular Bible

While other English translations failed to capture the hearts of the reading public, the Geneva Bible was instantly popular. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions appeared. For forty years after the publication of the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible continued to be the Bible of the home. Oliver Cromwell used extracts from the Geneva Bible for his Soldier's Pocket Bible which he issued to the army.

A THREAT TO KING JAMES

In 1620 the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth with their Bibles and a conviction derived from those Bibles of establishing a new nation. The Bible was not the King James Version. When James I became king of England in 1603, there were two translations of the Bible in use; the Geneva Bible was the most popular, and the Bishops' Bible was used for reading in churches.

King James disapproved of the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic leanings. He also frowned on what he considered to be seditious marginal notes on key political texts. A marginal note for Exodus 1:9 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct in disobeying the Egyptian king's orders, and a note for 2 Chronicles 15:16 said that King Asa should have had his mother executed and not merely deposed for the crime of worshipping an idol. The King James Version of the Bible grew out of the king's distaste for these brief but potent doctrinal commentaries. He considered the marginal notes to be a political threat to his kingdom.

At a conference at Hampton Court in 1604 with bishops and theologians, the king listened to a suggestion by the Puritan scholar John Reynolds that a new translation of the Bible was needed. Because of his distaste for the Geneva Bible, James was eager for a new translation. "I profess," he said, "I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst."

A THREAT TO ROME

In addition to being a threat to the king of England, the Geneva Bible was outspokenly anti-Roman Catholic, as one might expect. Rome was still persecuting Protestants in the sixteenth century. Keep in mind that the English translators were exiles from a nation that was returning to the Catholic faith under a queen who was burning Protestants at the stake. The anti-Roman Catholic sentiment is most evident in the Book of Revelation: "The beast that cometh out of the bottomless pit (Rev. 11:7) is the Pope, which hath his power out of hell and cometh thence." In the end, the Geneva Bible was replaced by the King James Version, but not before it helped to settle America.

Back in Geneva

Calvin knew that the job of reforming a city seemingly bent on destruction would not be easy. "There is no place in the world that I fear more," he confessed. Immorality was at an all-time high, with gambling, street brawls, drunkenness, adultery, and public indecency common everywhere. But not all was dark. When he arrived on September 13, 1541, a change had come over the city. The people actually wanted him to return. The city officials bestowed honors on him and apologized for the way he had been treated. The Council members assured Calvin that they would cooperate with him to restore the Gospel and moral order. The businessmen were equally relieved to learn that Calvin might return. Calvin was overwhelmed by the outward display of affection and decided to return to Geneva. On September 16th he wrote to Farel: "Your wish is granted. I am held fast here. May God give His blessing."

Calvin's Contributions

Calvin continued his work of reformation, not by a heavy-handed use of the civil magistrate, but with the preaching of God's Word and the building of the Church. Church government was lacking, not only in Geneva, but all over Protestant Europe. Calvin understood that only the Church, not the State, could define orthodox theology and bring about true long-term reform. According to the Bible, the State and the Church were jurisdictionally separate. Each had its God-ordained area of jurisdiction and authority - one civil (the State) and one ecclesiastical (the Church). Even so, Calvin insisted, both Church and State were ordained by God and obligated to follow His laws as they applied to their specific appointed jurisdictions.

Calvin's view that God reigns everywhere and over all things led him to develop the biblical idea that man can serve God in every area of life - church, civil government, education, art, music, business, law, journalism. There was no need to be a priest, a monk, or a nun to get closer to God. God is glorified in everyday work and family life. Calvin's teaching led directly to what has become known as the "Protestant work ethic." Individual initiative leads to economic productivity as Christians work out their faith in their callings before God.

Stricken with tuberculosis, Calvin preached his last sermon on February 6, 1564. Although bedridden until his death on May 27, 1564, Calvin continued to work, extending his legacy in the lives of those who sat under his teaching.

Thanks to the Institutes of the Christian Religion, his printed sermons, the Academy, his commentaries on nearly every book of the Bible (except the Song of Solomon and the Book of Revelation), and his pattern of Church and Civil government, Calvin shaped the thought and motivated the ideals of Protestantism in France, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungry, Scotland, and the English Puritans; many of whom settled in America. The great American historian George Bancroft stated, "He that will not honor the memory, and respect the influence of Calvin, knows but little of the origin of American liberty." The famous German historian, Leopold von Ranke, wrote, "John Calvin was the virtual founder of America." John Adams, the second president of the United States, wrote: "Let not Geneva be forgotten or despised. Religious liberty owes it most respect."

Article By: Gary DeMar

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (19) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Beware

The book of Acts closes with a last look at the Apostle Paul…

’[He was] preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him’ [Acts 28:31].

Why is preaching and teaching the priority in Paul’s ministry? What does Jesus mean, ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness…?’

Political activism is not the priority of the church. Preaching the doctrines of Jesus Christ must be its priority.

Beware an apostate church associated with a lawless state.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rule of Law vs Antinomianism

The rule of law is possible as long as there is consensus of what is right.

Today there is no consensus of what is right because the only authority big enough to form a consensus is undermined by an unlawful magistrate. They destroy the foundations established by the Founders. The magistrate is antinomian because the church is silent.

The concept of rule of law originated with men who understood that all men including the king or the state was subject to the moral Law of God. These men would not tolerate an unlawful magistrate because they understood the origins of liberty and tyranny.

As God’s Law is undermined, then the rule of law as we know it that leads to liberty is exchanged for antinomianism and tyranny.

The libertarians will vote on what is right or each man will determine for himself what is right. Liberty and lawlessness don’t mix. Liberty depends on a rule of law with its basis in something bigger than man.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Advocate

Advocate: the Gospel in Song

Words by Charitie L. Bancroft, 1863.

Before the throne of God above
I have a strong and perfect plea.
A great high Priest whose Name is Love
Who ever lives and pleads for me.
My name is graven on His hands,
My name is written on His heart.
I know that while in Heaven He stands
No tongue can bid me thence depart.

When Satan tempts me to despair
And tells me of the guilt within,
Upward I look and see Him there
Who made an end of all my sin.
Because the sinless Savior died
My sinful soul is counted free.
For God the just is satisfied
To look on Him and pardon me.

Behold Him there the risen Lamb,
My perfect spotless righteousness,
The great unchangeable I AM,
The King of glory and of grace,
One in Himself I cannot die.
My soul is purchased by His blood,
My life is hid with Christ on high,
With Christ my Savior and my God!

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive