Muslims and Kirk Ministers

Muslims and Kirk Ministers

I heard a joke recently: “What is the difference between a Muslim and a Church of Scotland minister?”  Answer: “Muslims believe in the Virgin Birth.”

Not strictly accurate, but it has a way of focussing our minds.

Not all Muslims necessarily believe in the Virgin Birth, despite it being clearly taught in the Qur’an (Sura 19:19,20).

 Not all Kirk ministers reject the Virgin Birth.  It is difficult to find recent statistical evidence, but an older survey (The Sunday Times, 2004) showed that 37% of their sample of Church of Scotland ministers rejected the virgin birth. There was a distinct geographical divide, “with most ministers in the Highlands and islands favouring a literal interpretation while those in the central belt were more sceptical." That same split on doctrinal matters is also currently reflected in ethical matters, e.g. same sex partnerships/marriage.

It may be that since 2004 there has been a resurgence of orthodoxy and the percentage of non-believing ministers has dropped dramatically.  But if we extrapolate on the 2004 percentage there would be around 320 of the current ministers rejecting the virgin birth.  

Why then the evangelical surprise that Rev Andrew Frater has gone public with his dismissal of the virgin birth.  Perhaps he is just more open and honest than the other estimated 319 ministers who reject the virgin birth.

However, evangelical outrage is easily expressed in the comfort of their own congregations.  The reality is that Mr Frater is totally protected from doctrinal discipline.  It is unlikely that there will be any attempt in the Presbytery of Dumbarton to discipline Mr Frater, and if there was, that it would succeed. This is where the national church needs to be challenged: you have no discipline, you have a fellowship that embraces heretics and the sexually immoral in membership and office, you will not be obedient to the clear NT teaching on dealing with false teachers.  

Of course, their response is that we are being unkind and uncaring bringing these matters up; why can’t we just let these matters lie and not be a thorn in their side. “It is better to be divided by truth than to be united in error. It is better to stand alone with the truth, than to be wrong with a multitude.” (Adrian Rogers)

Meanwhile, for those who wish to consider the issue further, here from the pen of Albert Mohler:

Must Christians Believe in the Virgin Birth?

It’s That Season Again

It’s That Season Again

You know it is approaching Christmas when you see Christmas trees, festive lighting in city centres, people wearing Santa hats, and – yes, as usual, articles by Church of Scotland ministers denying the virgin birth, the true incarnation, and by implication, the deity of Christ and therefore the fundamental truth of the Trinity.

This year’s offerings, from one of the usual suspects, is found in today’s Herald:

“Now is the Time to disentangle truth from tinsel”

There is nothing new here; same heresies boldly repeated knowing that such denials are protected by the usual “liberty of opinion on such matters not entering into the substance of the faith” get out clause.

Thankfully, there is an antidote.  For a biblical Scottish Presbyterian restatement of the truth of Christmas try

“Child in the Manger – The True Meaning of Christmas”  by Sinclair Ferguson”

The Juggernaut Moves

  

The Juggernaut Moves

No sooner are the Church of Scotland presbytery results announced supporting members and office-bearers in same sex marriage than the denominational juggernaut trundles into action.

Firstly, Covenant Fellowship Scotland are told that they must remove the denominational logo from their website.  They may wish to speak to the denomination, but they cannot be seen as speaking for the denomination.  They comply, and replace the official logo with an older Irish burning bush.

Secondly, Inverness Presbytery had already been told that they cannot dissent from the same sex partnership/marriage legislation. A court of the church cannot dissociate itself from the decision of a higher court it seems.  They comply, and reverse their dissociation, (at least at a presbytery level.)

This would also apply to Kirk Sessions.  Any Kirk Sessions who have informed their congregation of their rejection of the Assembly legislation will presumably have to re-inform them that they cannot, as a Kirk Session, do so.  Will we see liberal presbyteries scour the minutes of evangelical churches to make sure there is compliance?

We already know that the denomination have declared that no congregation can leave the Church of Scotland.  They may do so as an aggregate of individuals, but officially they cannot do so as a congregation.  Their property and money, of course, cannot go with them.

Do not expect an even-handed, gracious response from the denomination.  The liberal progressives have won; there will be no policy of amicable dismissal of congregations, there will be no presbytery no-go areas, there will be no reversal of the anti-biblical moral and doctrinal apostasy.

  

Breaking News - Church of Scotland

Breaking News:

Majority of Presbyteries Support Office-Bearers in Gay Marriage.

The press, not the church, has just published the news that the presbyteries of the Church of Scotland have reached a majority in approving draft legislation that supports office-bearers in gay marriages.  A few presbyteries have yet to report, but the current figure is that 55% of presbyteries support the legislation.  That figure may increase slightly with later returns.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/church-of-scotland-faces-showdown-over-married-same-sex-ministers-1-3973993

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (6)

Why I am no longer in the Church of Scotland (6)

In 1995 I produced a small booklet on biblical separation. This is the sixth extract from that booklet:

1 Corinthians 5:1,2,4,5

1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Here is a clear case of corrective discipline exercised against someone engaged in an immoral sexual practice, in the hope that they might repent. If, as some argue, “tares” are never to be removed from the church, then why did Paul call for this man to be put out of the fellowship?  If what happens in another congregation is none of our business, why is Paul intervening in the internal affairs of the congregation in Corinth? If the local church had decided that this sexual morality was acceptable in their fellowship, why did Paul not accept this diversity of practice, “allowing limited departure from the practice of the Church when a Kirk Session decides to depart in order to permit the membership of an individual in a civil partnership” with his father’s ex-wife? No, Paul not only asks the church to remove this individual from membership, but to deliver him to Satan in the hope of repentance leading to restoration.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

Rather than advising the church to welcome into membership or office those who are sexually immoral, Paul instructs it not to associate with them in church fellowship.  These men may claim to be “brothers”, but if their conduct is contrary to biblical morality they are not to be accepted in fellowship, but expelled from the church until they repent. Would Paul not also have applied these strong words to those who condoned sexual immorality and justified unnatural practices? Is it not equally true that if they persisted in defending these practices they too were to be expelled and disfellowshipped. [Note – when first written in 1995 there were none openly and publicly engaged in homosexual practices, although I believe they were there but not “out”, keeping their conduct secret. In 1995 the principal public problem was that there were those who were promoting, defending and encouraging homosexual practices.  By failing to deal with the promotion of homosexuality the Church of Scotland ended up defending the practice of homosexuality.]

1 Corinthians 15:33, 34

33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.” 34 Wake up from your drunken stupor, as is right, and do not go on sinning. For some have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.

The “bad company” to which Paul refers is the company of those who denied apostolic teaching and gospel truths, in this particular case the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  By associating with such teachers the church had lost it senses, it needed to “sober up” and recognise the harm to which such associations led. Such an association was sinful, (“stop sinning”), hence Paul’s command to stop doing what was wrong. The church should have been filled with shame at keeping such company.

Does not denominational fellowship with those who reject apostolic teaching and ethics amount to keeping “bad company”? If so, it is sinning! It is not  a mere compromise, or an acceptable flexible practice – IT IS SIN. It is not a legitimate option, if we are biblical Christians, to keep on sinning and we cannot justify such conduct on the grounds that there may, perhaps, be some future benefit from this temporary sinful conduct.

(To be continued.)

For a Continuing Church

“For a Continuing Church: The Roots of the Presbyterian Church in America”

 Sean Michael Lucas, P & R Publishing (December 11, 2015)

It is now over 40 years since the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America.  It is the largest biblically orthodox and Reformed church in the USA, with a self-proclaimed commitment to be “faithful to the Scriptures, true to the Reformed faith, and obedient to the Great Commission.” Since its formation in 1973 it has grown to number over 1500 congregations throughout the USA and even in Canada. 

Initially it grew out of secession from the liberal PCUSA, as conservative congregations came together to maintain a biblical witness in the new denomination.  Lucas tells the story of the birth and growth of the PCA and of its theological and social development.

It is interesting to reflect on the fact that some leading PCUSA evangelicals were antagonistic to forming a new denomination.  Indeed in 1972 the PCUSA choose a professed evangelical as Moderator in an attempt to prevent the impending disruption.  He immediately repudiated his former associates and with others tried to persuade them to remain within the liberal PCUSA.  The remain-within evangelicals formed a Covenant Fellowship committed to remaining within the PCUSA and reforming the liberal denomination. (They failed utterly; most of them left the PCUSA 9 years later and joined the EPC) The PCUSA continued in its increasingly progressive liberal direction, haemorrhaging members and congregations, and stands today as the ultimate example of Presbyterian apostasy embracing doctrinal and moral heresy. In contrast, the PCA has grown and flourished showing that a conservative, evangelical, Reformed denomination can succeed; separation from error proved the catalyst for growth.

As Kevin DeYoung says in his commendation:

"This is about far more than the PCA. This book is nothing less than a history of Presbyterianism in the twentieth century—with all its theological wrangling, all its political manoeuvring, all its failings, and all its faithfulness. This is certainly a story worth telling, and Sean tells it very well."

There are of course no parallels with the situation in Scotland, or are there?

I look forward to reading in full Lucas’ excellent study.

An Outstanding Address

An Outstanding Address

I know I have already drawn attention to the 9Marks Conference on Church Discipline.  I have been challenged listening to the addresses, but yesterday I managed to listen to our own Mez McConnel’s contribution.  It blew me out of the water – biblical, practical and forceful. I only wish our friends at the Covenant Fellowship, especially new ministerial candidates, would listen to all these addresses and this one in particular. 

There is nowhere left to hide.  I loved his comments on snuggling up to wolves, as if they are cuddly pets – accommodation with wolves is a dangerous pastime! Yesterday was a sort of super-Tuesday, with the majority of the remaining Church of Scotland presbyteries deciding on support or otherwise of gay marriage in office-bearers and members. The final figures are not out, but all bets are off. The liberal progressive majority will triumph, if current returns are any indication. Too many evangelicals are keeping company with wolves.

But there was another aspect of what Mez said that really caught my attention.  It was the error that “poor” congregations, those in socio-economically deprived areas where perhaps the general educational standards are lower, do not need and cannot cope with doctrine. Mez blasts the unbiblical bias in this, and the error of giving the “poor” only milk and not the meat of the word. The “poor” need doctrine, the "poor" can cope with doctrine, and the “poor” relish good biblical doctrine.  It is a sure defence against false teaching and false teachers!

One facet of this is the need to supplement expository preaching with doctrinal and topical teaching.  A diet of only biblical exposition without the synthesis of that teaching into doctrinal and ethical teaching is in its own way imbalanced.  If we want our people to know of the Trinity, we need occasionally to preach on that theme, (Trinity Sunday?). If we want them to have a clear grasp on justification we need to complement Galatians and Romans with direct teaching on the topic, and also direct refutation of errors.

In the Scottish tradition we have the Shorter and Larger Catechism – at one time, as in the Dutch churches, catechetical teaching was part of our regular spiritual diet.  The catechisms are not just for children.  I have taught through the catechism in a midweek study and am currently preaching through it when I preach in my own local congregation’s morning service.

But we could also use the creeds, some of the modern evangelical statements of belief or some of the subject specific statements such as the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, or the Danvers Statement on gender.  I have also used the OPC’s Directory for the Public Worship of God, an excellent teaching tool.

Don’t let the elites claim that ordinary people can’t cope with doctrine.  The New Testament epistles were written to ordinary people, some of whom were illiterate slaves.  It strikes me today that some of the more doctrinally sound and biblically informed congregations are in the less middle class areas. They, perhaps, will be the future bastions against doctrinal and moral heresy.

Listen to Mez, and see if he has not made a sound, biblical, practical, and frankly unanswerable case for doctrinal discipline and doctrinal instruction:

http://multimedia.sebts.edu/?p=6458