Thursday, June 18, 2009
N. T. Wright or N. T. Wrong?
Question 1
"Where do unjustified sinners go when they die Tom?"
Question 2
"Where is the Rich Man in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16)?"
Question 3
"If I were standing on some train tracks and I said: 'that train that is coming towards me, has smoke coming out of its nostrils, googley eyes and really spikey haircut.' Would that have any bearing on whether I would be smashed by the train or not? (In other words, characterising hell, doesn't change its existance does it Tom?)
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Canon's, Creeds and Confessions
Below is a sample from the Canons and Decrees of the Synod of Dordt (1619). The blessings of the Canon's, Creeds and Confessions are not recognised much today, yet they are helpful to the Christian in many ways (eg. to guard from error, to guide in doctrine). Take time to read them, most of them are listed and linked to on this blog.
_________________________________________________________
From:
The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine
Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
Article 9: Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel
The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life's cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).
_________________________________________________________
From:
The Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine
Human Corruption, Conversion to God, and the Way It Occurs
Article 9: Human Responsibility for Rejecting the Gospel
The fact that many who are called through the ministry of the gospel do not come and are not brought to conversion must not be blamed on the gospel, nor on Christ, who is offered through the gospel, nor on God, who calls them through the gospel and even bestows various gifts on them, but on the people themselves who are called. Some in self-assurance do not even entertain the Word of life; others do entertain it but do not take it to heart, and for that reason, after the fleeting joy of a temporary faith, they relapse; others choke the seed of the Word with the thorns of life's cares and with the pleasures of the world and bring forth no fruits. This our Savior teaches in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13).
Monday, June 1, 2009
'In Step' Bible Conference 2009
From the New Community Church website (click on writing [left] for more details):
"In Step 2009 Bible Conference is rapidly approaching, and we're looking forward to a time of real blessing as this year’s keynote speaker, Chris Mueller, preaches expositionally through Ephesians six.
Chris will present five challenging and life changing messages in a series entitled Spiritual Warfare - How to Prepare for Victorious Christian Living.
Additionally, a variety of relevant seminars presented by gifted New Community speakers will provide a wonderful weekend of personal and insightful challenges to grow along with encouragement to persevere in the heat of the battle of living in a fallen world.
In addition to great preaching you will enjoy wonderful times of worship and fellowship along with a few extra surprises for those who register...
...This is one event you will not want to miss!
We look forward to fellowshipping with you at the Instep Conference 12th-14th June 2009."
To be held at Adelaide College of Ministries campus (http://www.acm.sa.edu.au/)
To register phone Geoff on (08) 8260 4773 or email mailto:cbce.au@gmail.com?subject=InStep%20Enquiry
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Narrow Road of Truth – Part 4 (conclusion)
by David Barnett
‘Pluralism’ - that idea that ‘truth is in the eye of the beholder’, is today being accepted in many churches, under many guises. One of the greatest advocates of ‘pluralism’ within the professing Church is the ‘Emerging Church’ movement. This movement is reluctant to lay claim to any of the foundational doctrines of historical Christianity, and this in a bid to promote ‘dialogue’ with an increasingly pluralistic world. This movement has therefore adopted the new view of ‘religious tolerance’ as a means toward this end. People within this movement are caught between a rock and a hard place when they are confronted with Scriptures like those mentioned above, which deal with definite, authoritative statements about objective truth. At this point, I would greatly encourage those Christians who value the truth to read a copy of D.A. Carson’s book, ‘Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church’, which deals in depth with the ideologies of the Emerging Church movement, and its historical roots.
Christians, this philosophy of ‘pluralism’ ought not to be found in the Church of the Living God! The Church of God is not vague in its thinking about truth; rather it is the ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15)! We’re admonished to proclaim the truth (Matt. 10:27), preserve and pass on the truth (1 Tim. 4:11, 2 Tim. 2:2), and contend for the truth (Jude 3). ‘Buy the truth, and do not sell it’ (Prov. 23:23), whatever price the world offers you. Bind the truth around your neck (Prov. 3:3), that it may always be with you, instructing you along the Way. Truth is precious to the believer, because of the Christ of whom it declares. The Spirit affirms only ‘one faith’, because there is but ‘one Lord’ (Eph. 4:5). This one Lord is He of whom it was written, ‘we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth’ (Jn. 1:14). Truth became incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ, and that is why this issue is of such vital importance.
Yes, it is readily acknowledged, Scripture does on the odd occasion teach ‘pluralism’: there will be a ‘plurality’ of false doctrines which will plague the church, brought in secretly by a plurality of false teachers and prophets. But when it comes to the foundations of ‘the’ faith, there is but one Truth: ‘I am the way, the truth, the life’ (Jn. 14:6). If there is any validity to the claims of many modern ‘evangelicals’ that what is true for someone is ‘true’ by virtue of the fact that it is believed; then Christ prayed in vain in Gethsemane, ‘O My Father, if it is possible let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will... O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done’ (Matt. 26:39, 42). The Father’s will was done: the Son was nailed to the cross, and made to drink the cup of God’s wrath full-strength, as He bore the sins of His people. And with His crucifixion on Calvary’s cross, Christ crucified ‘pluralism’ once and for all, and declared plainly to the world: ‘No one comes to the Father except through Me’. There is but one way, and that is the narrow way through Christ and His cross.
‘Pluralism’ - that idea that ‘truth is in the eye of the beholder’, is today being accepted in many churches, under many guises. One of the greatest advocates of ‘pluralism’ within the professing Church is the ‘Emerging Church’ movement. This movement is reluctant to lay claim to any of the foundational doctrines of historical Christianity, and this in a bid to promote ‘dialogue’ with an increasingly pluralistic world. This movement has therefore adopted the new view of ‘religious tolerance’ as a means toward this end. People within this movement are caught between a rock and a hard place when they are confronted with Scriptures like those mentioned above, which deal with definite, authoritative statements about objective truth. At this point, I would greatly encourage those Christians who value the truth to read a copy of D.A. Carson’s book, ‘Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church’, which deals in depth with the ideologies of the Emerging Church movement, and its historical roots.
Christians, this philosophy of ‘pluralism’ ought not to be found in the Church of the Living God! The Church of God is not vague in its thinking about truth; rather it is the ‘the pillar and ground of the truth’ (1 Tim. 3:15)! We’re admonished to proclaim the truth (Matt. 10:27), preserve and pass on the truth (1 Tim. 4:11, 2 Tim. 2:2), and contend for the truth (Jude 3). ‘Buy the truth, and do not sell it’ (Prov. 23:23), whatever price the world offers you. Bind the truth around your neck (Prov. 3:3), that it may always be with you, instructing you along the Way. Truth is precious to the believer, because of the Christ of whom it declares. The Spirit affirms only ‘one faith’, because there is but ‘one Lord’ (Eph. 4:5). This one Lord is He of whom it was written, ‘we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth’ (Jn. 1:14). Truth became incarnate in the Person of Jesus Christ, and that is why this issue is of such vital importance.
Yes, it is readily acknowledged, Scripture does on the odd occasion teach ‘pluralism’: there will be a ‘plurality’ of false doctrines which will plague the church, brought in secretly by a plurality of false teachers and prophets. But when it comes to the foundations of ‘the’ faith, there is but one Truth: ‘I am the way, the truth, the life’ (Jn. 14:6). If there is any validity to the claims of many modern ‘evangelicals’ that what is true for someone is ‘true’ by virtue of the fact that it is believed; then Christ prayed in vain in Gethsemane, ‘O My Father, if it is possible let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will... O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done’ (Matt. 26:39, 42). The Father’s will was done: the Son was nailed to the cross, and made to drink the cup of God’s wrath full-strength, as He bore the sins of His people. And with His crucifixion on Calvary’s cross, Christ crucified ‘pluralism’ once and for all, and declared plainly to the world: ‘No one comes to the Father except through Me’. There is but one way, and that is the narrow way through Christ and His cross.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Narrow Road of Truth - Part 3
By David Barnett
Today, the post-modern spirit is rampant in our schools and universities, and a new definition for ‘tolerance’ has been formed. ‘Tolerance’ now means something along the lines of, ‘If what you have stated is true for you, then who am I to say that it is wrong?’; if a thought or theory is valid in one person’s mind, it must be held by all to be valid. And hence, society’s integral principle of ‘antithesis’, which literally holds civilization together, is done away with; ‘pluralism’ has re-emerged, and is, to quote Karl Marx out of context, ‘the opium of the people’. And yet, despite its sway in the universities and its frequent usage in political addresses to win the favour of the majority, the idea of ‘pluralism’ in the realm of ‘truth’ has only and can only take root in those fields which do not have any immediate consequences on the social-structures and general management and well-being of a society. Pluralism is widely-held in the Arts and in modern Philosophy, yet it would be the height of absurdity and a great danger to the public if our engineering firms and medical practitioners functioned on the basis of there being a plurality of truths, or truth as subjective. Take the following example.
Imagine a brain-surgeon telling his patient, “The clinic down the road believes that making micro-incisions with hi-tech utensils into the skull is the most affective and risk-free method for removing brain tumours. And yes, I freely admit: all outward evidence and recorded results would suggest that there is an extraordinarily high success-rate for operations performed in such a manner. However, that method doesn’t really hold true for me. I have a background in Hinduism, and I believe that there are unique healing properties in cow dung. Hence, I’ve brought in this cow, and so rather than me operate on you and remove the tumour, I instead want you to massage cow manure into your head where you believe the pain is. Repeat this process three times a day (after a meal preferably - but it doesn’t really matter, because it’s all relative) for exactly nine months.”
Imagine a brain-surgeon telling his patient, “The clinic down the road believes that making micro-incisions with hi-tech utensils into the skull is the most affective and risk-free method for removing brain tumours. And yes, I freely admit: all outward evidence and recorded results would suggest that there is an extraordinarily high success-rate for operations performed in such a manner. However, that method doesn’t really hold true for me. I have a background in Hinduism, and I believe that there are unique healing properties in cow dung. Hence, I’ve brought in this cow, and so rather than me operate on you and remove the tumour, I instead want you to massage cow manure into your head where you believe the pain is. Repeat this process three times a day (after a meal preferably - but it doesn’t really matter, because it’s all relative) for exactly nine months.”
As foolish as this is, this line of reasoning is being accepted and propagated in various academic fields every day. I labour this point, because although the notion of antithesis (that is, that A is not non-A) is fundamental to the survival and well-being of society and the sanity of mankind; it is a notion which is denied on many fronts, not the least of which by some people who profess Christianity as their religion, though it is the most antithetical of all the religions of the world.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
The Narrow Road of Truth – Part 2
By David Barnett
Thus the distinction between truth and errors is amplified clearly: straight and narrow and singular is that way which leads to everlasting life, that way which is encompassed in the teaching of Christ and the apostles; and on the contrary: broad and many are those ways which lead to everlasting misery, those ways which are proposed by false teachers and prophets.
This is all very important for our day, because the age in which we live is one of ‘pluralism’; which is to say, there are more truths than one truth; or to state the same negatively: there is no singular, perfect, harmonious unit of truth; or, to rephrase the same but in a more personal context (as it is usually heard today): ‘no one can lay claim to knowing the truth, especially if that truth says every other belief system is wrong’; i.e. no one today can claim what the New Testament writers claimed two-thousand years ago about the truth of Christianity. So prevalent is this idea in our society, that anyone who does believe in one substantial, objective system of truth - regardless of his world-view or religion - is seen to be ignorant, intolerant, and arrogant. The greater part of our post-modern society likes to believe in subjective truth, or a ‘plurality’ of truths; and even if they do not and can not consistently practice their profession, they will proclaim it till they die.
Perhaps this is no more clearly expressed than in the discussion about ‘religious tolerance’, where the irreligious obstinately insist that those who do have religious beliefs hold them less firmly, and be more accommodating of other peoples’ religious beliefs. Once upon a time, ‘tolerance’ was generally defined thus: whilst a person held strong views, they insisted that others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own case. There was a threefold assumption under this old view of tolerance: 1) Objective truth is out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth. 2) The various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is. 3) Nevertheless, they believe that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter is by the unhindered exchange of ideas; regardless of how wrong those ideas seem to other parties. Perhaps this was best summarised by Voltaire, who famously said, ‘I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.
Thus the distinction between truth and errors is amplified clearly: straight and narrow and singular is that way which leads to everlasting life, that way which is encompassed in the teaching of Christ and the apostles; and on the contrary: broad and many are those ways which lead to everlasting misery, those ways which are proposed by false teachers and prophets.
This is all very important for our day, because the age in which we live is one of ‘pluralism’; which is to say, there are more truths than one truth; or to state the same negatively: there is no singular, perfect, harmonious unit of truth; or, to rephrase the same but in a more personal context (as it is usually heard today): ‘no one can lay claim to knowing the truth, especially if that truth says every other belief system is wrong’; i.e. no one today can claim what the New Testament writers claimed two-thousand years ago about the truth of Christianity. So prevalent is this idea in our society, that anyone who does believe in one substantial, objective system of truth - regardless of his world-view or religion - is seen to be ignorant, intolerant, and arrogant. The greater part of our post-modern society likes to believe in subjective truth, or a ‘plurality’ of truths; and even if they do not and can not consistently practice their profession, they will proclaim it till they die.
Perhaps this is no more clearly expressed than in the discussion about ‘religious tolerance’, where the irreligious obstinately insist that those who do have religious beliefs hold them less firmly, and be more accommodating of other peoples’ religious beliefs. Once upon a time, ‘tolerance’ was generally defined thus: whilst a person held strong views, they insisted that others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own case. There was a threefold assumption under this old view of tolerance: 1) Objective truth is out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth. 2) The various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is. 3) Nevertheless, they believe that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter is by the unhindered exchange of ideas; regardless of how wrong those ideas seem to other parties. Perhaps this was best summarised by Voltaire, who famously said, ‘I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
