tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18162269612176303932024-03-13T10:15:19.426-06:00churches of red deer'A BISHOP THEN MUST BE BLAMELESS...APT TO TEACH'The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-68014943612253010302019-11-13T20:25:00.000-07:002019-11-13T20:25:45.171-07:00CONTACT ME ON MY NEWS BLOG<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBKaecsXYV605FYTb4jcH7uXrryQCo5tpJr8kMKAVnVQsF1ZLHWlWeSup2ZEJXhFnjdwJ8tUDv2jXmfzSccPRghp8wST9zBpFHE4yjoZfkz9zcthnY-FOMTUaERDQJNQrncAC15jlqwAG/s1600/PIC+OF+BLOG.PNG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="161" data-original-width="785" height="81" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKBKaecsXYV605FYTb4jcH7uXrryQCo5tpJr8kMKAVnVQsF1ZLHWlWeSup2ZEJXhFnjdwJ8tUDv2jXmfzSccPRghp8wST9zBpFHE4yjoZfkz9zcthnY-FOMTUaERDQJNQrncAC15jlqwAG/s400/PIC+OF+BLOG.PNG" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">If you wish to contact me, please go to my other blog, which looks like the image above. I do not post on my church blog anymore. Here is the link to the blog I currently use:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><a href="http://www.thebibleandthenews.com/">http://www.thebibleandthenews.com/</a></span></div>
</div>
thebibleandthenewshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15822107296545789954noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-23833804366735383012015-02-21T11:35:00.003-07:002015-02-21T11:35:31.778-07:00THIS BLOG IS NOW A BOOK<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The analyses that have been posted on this blog have been put into book form (ebook), complete with preface, introduction, conclusion, and four appendices.</span> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;">Here is a video to introduce the book:</span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dxplMB9WMOEBS6Vge828MkQHJegsKkJc9xKe065KYvmIYgoQtd6x7Hc7CAo8NIyMRMG4FjRR4S7bZcHXuFM2w' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Here is a link to Amazon, where that book can be acquired: <a href="http://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00TRSRM98">http://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00TRSRM98</a></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-42586567621309169372013-10-30T19:05:00.000-06:002013-10-30T19:05:28.793-06:00BALMORAL BIBLE CHAPEL, SAVING FAITH VERSUS FALSE FAITH (SERMON ANALYSIS 8)<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<span style="font-size: large;">November 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">This is the third
sermon by Mr. Fox to review, and the eighth from Balmoral Bible Chapel. We
listened by podcast. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Fox, Balmoral
Bible Chapel, May 22<sup>nd</sup>, 2011, </span></b><i><b><span style="font-size: large;">Saving
Faith Versus False Faith. </span></b><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Summary:</i> (Mr. Fox begins with some
announcements, then prays.) Turn with me to John 8.31-36. (He reads from
there.) How many of you enjoy political debates? More and more, they are
becoming nothing but sound-bites. The essence of true debate is for it to yield
great benefit to those who listen. I have to thank the Lord for false teachers
who try to air condition hell or tell us when the day of judgment is. They set
such a dark curtain in order for the true light to shine. Last week we found
ourselves hearing the debate that Jesus had with his adversaries. And we read
that many believed in him as he said certain things. What things? He has been
teaching about being living water and true light. In light of that, many
believed in him. There’s truth in this word concerning unity. The word is not
just the Old and New Testaments. Jesus is the Word. Jesus placed a stamp of
certification on the Old Testament. The whole word is profitable. Three things
from our passage: (A) the importance to continue in the word of Jesus Christ;
(B) you will know the truth; (C) it is the truth that will set you free. This
order cannot be changed around. We find Jesus making a distinction between true
and false disciples. The fruit of discipleship is a manifestation of obedience.
It’s not a condition. Both true and false disciples will profess belief in
Christ. It’s not how people begin that counts, but how they continue that will
distinguish them between having a possession of faith and a profession of
faith. When trials come, those in Christ, through faith, will not be shaken.
They will persevere. Those who hold fast, in time, bear fruit. Jesus tells his
disciples that the one who endures to the end will be saved. We forget to tell
people who come to Christ that you have a real enemy in yourself, in the world,
and in the heavens. We will not be found amongst those who deny his word. We
see that some believed Jesus to a certain point. Their discipleship was not
genuine. It’s important to know the difference between saving faith and false
faith. I don’t have the time to unpack this for you. True saving faith will
have a profession and possession of faith. We want to find ourselves wrestling
with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Remaining is the fruit of the disciple.
Nothing else will set you free. Now to John 6.37-40. (He reads from there.)
Continue in the word, know the truth, and you will be set free from yourself,
sin, and the power of the enemy who comes in those who are enslaved in
darkness. Christianity is not a game, but a life and death issue. I think we’ll
leave the matter there. Let’s pray. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Remarks:</i> In this sermon many verses
are quoted (not all mentioned in the summary) that support the gist of the
passage chosen by Mr. Fox to preach on. This is done, however, at the expense
of explaining the passage particularly. The doctrine of perseverance is in both
the passage and the sermon. But something more must exist in the passage than
the general idea that it is necessary to be found at last among the saved! One
can make a verbal profession while having no faith in one’s possession. A
sinner’s prayer, a raised hand, and a signed card are no proof of a sinner
getting saved. This is what Mr. Fox is anxious to warn about. And this warning
is very necessary in our Billy Graham ‘decision’-making milieu. So this is no
‘feel-good’ sermon. We are thankful for that. The jokes that Mr. Fox had
prepared to let fly in his preliminary remarks are jettisoned (for the wrong
reason, but we are thankful just the same.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This sermon, like the two others we have listened to
from this pastor, is a blunted arrow poorly aimed. The title promises that
saving faith and false faith will be contrasted. But there is no hint of
contrast in any of the three points introduced. Can anyone find a contrast
there? First point: the importance of continuing in the word: no contrast
found. Second point: you will know the truth: no contrast there. Third point:
the truth will set you free: nothing again. Or can any of these points be
legitimately contrasted with each other? No, continuing in the word does not
contrast with knowing the truth or being set free. Try any other configuration
that you want, using these three points, and you will find no contrast. Not
only is there no contrast shown in these points, whether considered singly or
together, but then after the points are introduced, they are abandoned to make
way for the general idea that one must persevere! There seems to be no reason
for anything that is done in this sermon. The title is ignored. The points are
there we not why. And the pastor goes all over the Bible in search of
perseverance, and then teaches nothing about it! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Here is a suggestion of what might be done, with
little effort, if any respect for the title were retained and exercised. We
suggest one point. Saving faith sets us free to serve God; false faith keeps us
in bondage to serve sin. There is a contrast that serves the title. Saving
faith and false faith are at odds. That is what the title tells us; therefore
why not tell us how and why this is so? For example, in what ways may the freed
spirit serve his Maker? In what ways must the captive spirit serve his lusts?
In what ways do these two spirits butt heads in the world? Address questions
like these, and the sermon opens up to show the characteristics of both kinds
of faith, not to mention the characteristics of each people on either side. By
this kind of faithful treatment of our title, the saints can be blessed and
warned to persevere, and the unconverted can get convicted for their lack of
proof that their faith is of the persevering sort. These thoughts were prompted
from just a few minutes of consideration for what the passage actually
contains, and the reading of just half of what Matthew Henry offers up in
commenting upon it. Yet this pastor has virtually nothing to say in this sermon
except statements like these: the whole word is profitable; some believed in
Jesus to a point; and Christianity is not a game. Can things get more uselessly
elementary than this? And when he tries to say something more profound, he
comes up with terms like ‘manifestation of continuance’ and ‘condition of
continuance.’ He can’t explain these odd terms because he can’t understand them
himself. Like Mr. Doeksen who departed from Deer Park Alliance, he seems to be
imitating this overrated wannabe-scholar by the name of John Piper, which is a
sure way to become obscure and irrelevant! If you can’t do the job in your own
skin, it is certain that you will fail in the skin of another! If Mr. Fox had
chosen a straight and simple route like the one we so painlessly gleaned and
intimated above, he would not so heedlessly fall into the sin of preaching
false security to his hearers (which is the very opposite of his intention: to
preach a doctrine of perseverance.) “We will not be found amongst those who
deny his word,” he says. What he should say is, “How many amongst us will be
found to deny the word we profess to be saved by?!” And then, “How many of us
deny God’s word every day and in how many ways? Here, let me show you what
these ways are…now what does this say about us? about you?” That is the sort of
content and tone that should naturally emerge if the doctrine of perseverance
were applied. Mr. Fox does not persevere in this sermon. He does not persevere
to make his points handmaidens of his title. He does not persevere to preach
his points. He does not persevere to preach what he finally decides to preach
on: the doctrine of perseverance. He does not persevere in the principal work
that he thinks God has called him to execute. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Conclusion: </i>“I don’t have time to unpack
this for you,” says Mr. Fox about the difference between saving faith and false
faith. Isn’t that your job, Mr. Fox? Isn’t that what the title of your sermon
promised us you would do? Shouldn’t we expect you to unpack <i>something </i>from your chosen theme? “We
forget to remind those who come to Christ that you have a real enemy in
yourself, in the world, and in the heavens,” he says. Did you tell us anything
about these enemies in this sermon? No, you said nothing about them; so the sin
of forgetting is mostly yours because you, as the pastor, should lead by
example. “We want to find ourselves wrestling with the teachings of Jesus
Christ,” he says with seriousness. Does he not tell us something like this in
every sermon? But have you wrestled with anything at all, Mr. Fox? If
Christianity is not a game, then surely the pulpit must be something more than
a mascot! We must be found wrestling, we must be found wrestling, he says, but
in three sermons in a row the man who needs to wrestle most has done nothing to
honor his title, his text, his points, or the theme he ends up talking about!
The reason for this dishonor must be that he did not wrestle in his study and
closet: not with his books and not in his prayers. But the more fundamental
reason for his botched work may be the fact that his vocation has no call from
God to back it up. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Once again, we have to ask, in wonder and with a wry
face on, how those persons in this congregation who know better can be
satisfied with a pastor who can teach nothing more than the most dreamy,
apathetic souls in church already know! Mr. Fox is earnest; but zeal without
aptitude for teaching is just one proof (and the only one we need) of a
professed calling that has no divine backing. Not all that profess to be called
are in possession of a calling. Not all that profess to be called are called to
prophesy. There is this idea pervading churches of all kinds at this time, and
which has pervaded the Brethren assemblies from their inception, probably, that
he who desires to teach the Bible is ‘apt to teach.’ Desire to teach does not
fulfill the qualification of aptitude that the Bible says an elder must have.
Aptitude to teach means more than a desire to teach; it means that you have <i>ability. </i>This man has not the aptitude;
he is not able. Therefore he is doing a thing for which he is not called, even
the greatest thing for which a calling is most necessary. “I’ve been discipling
for a long time,” this pastor assures us. With material like this?
Successfully? We should wonder about that. We are very eager by this time to
move on to examine the next church. But we have said <i>something</i>; we have more warrant at the close of this analysis than
Mr. Fox has at the close of his sermon, to say, that ‘we’ll leave the matter
there.’<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">But just one defense of our criticism before we
store this analysis. Mr. Fox says that he’s thankful to live in a country where
the worst that can happen to a Christian, in regards to persecution, is
criticism. Since this analysis is nothing but criticism, and since it comes
from a Christian quarter and therefore cannot be classified as persecution but
only reproof and correction, he should be <i>extremely
</i>thankful to receive our criticism and to take all that we have said to
heart. Now we can move on. And we insist that we have nothing against this man
except that his pulpit duties cannot be shown to be the outworking of that
characteristic of aptitude the apostle Paul reveals the called man <i>must</i> be in possession of. “A bishop [an
elder] then must be…apt to teach” (1 Timothy 3.2.)</span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-71091376263767427932013-10-22T11:48:00.000-06:002013-10-22T11:48:57.261-06:00CHARLES WOODBRIDGE, THE NEW EVANGELICALISM (BOOK REPORT 29)<div class="MsoTitle">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT<o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><b>Charles Woodbridge, <i>The New Evangelicalism</i> (Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones
University Press, 1969), 62 pp.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKqJhdIBe7fYzSf4Dt296XxPsgwULZzMvX3R4Ga4fjLRVSqFmr7RjK8VzO1cvtwFgWdn_2cf7AGWaXE5YQDCXz493olv7NjCusabpb_WM7HHQ7nAkPCGXqDy1b96yTzp7VHcU3y-2IQ7b7/s1600/the+new+evangelicalism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKqJhdIBe7fYzSf4Dt296XxPsgwULZzMvX3R4Ga4fjLRVSqFmr7RjK8VzO1cvtwFgWdn_2cf7AGWaXE5YQDCXz493olv7NjCusabpb_WM7HHQ7nAkPCGXqDy1b96yTzp7VHcU3y-2IQ7b7/s1600/the+new+evangelicalism.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">That Christian who has read little or no theology
from eras previous to the 20</span><sup>th</sup><span style="font-size: x-large;"> century is probably part of </span><span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>The New Evangelicalism.</i></span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> The term is not
a putdown. It was coined by a spokesman for the new approach:</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> Boston pastor Harold Ockenga. “In a formal
statement he has declared: ‘The New Evangelicalism has changed its strategy
from one of separation to one of infiltration’” (p. 14.) This new strategy is
not biblical: “Had Moses been a New Evangelical, he probably would have
reasoned thus: ‘Would it not be better for me to infiltrate Egypt</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> rather
than to separate myself from it? Would it not be more profitable if I
disregarded God’s command and remained in Pharaoh’s court as a witness to the
glory of God?’” (p. 13.) Here is the qualification: “Ministers of the gospel
may certainly accept invitations to preach, even in strange and unexpected
places, provided that they do not put themselves under the sponsorship or
auspices of false teachers” (p. 41.) The new evangelicalism strategy is the
same old pragmatism that the Jesuits used: “the teaching that the end justifies
the means utilized in the attainment of the end” (p. 31.) The root cause of
this pragmatic approach is the idea that “a new system of thought and practice
is needed in setting forth the message of salvation” (p. 16.) The biblical
methods of old are deemed insufficient. Dr. Woodbridge sketches the story of
this new evangelicalism, proves his thesis against the new way, and names the
guilty parties, just as the apostle Paul used to do.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">New Evangelical magazines include<i> </i>World Vision<i>, </i>Christian Life<i>, </i>Moody
Monthly, Christianity<i> </i>Today, and<i> </i>Eternity<i>. </i>These magazines, by promotion and publication, are connected to
heretical beliefs in their effort to achieve their desired end. “Over against
the teaching of the Word of God, some of the New Evangelicals now imply that in
dealing with heretics <i>the test is no
longer doctrine but love. </i>We must be less concerned about the theological
errors of unbelieving ministers and more concerned about exhibiting love toward
them” (p. 24.) This is to adopt “the ‘soft line’ of <i>appeasement </i>rather than the Biblical ‘hard line’ of repudiation”
(p. 25.) The peer pressure to adopt the soft line is indeed great, since even
Billy Graham has adopted it. “In the Los Angeles Graham crusade, the honorary
chairman was none other than Bishop Gerald F. Kennedy of the Methodist Church”
who, in a book called <i>God’s Good News</i>,
“eloquently denies the deity of Christ” (p. 39.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">“Frankly, if you do not genuinely believe the Bible,
or if you lack implicit faith in the accuracy, finality, and complete validity
of the Word of God…this message may seem to you to be strange, exaggerated, or
irrelevant” (p. 9.) Beware, New Evangelicalism is “a false doctrine which seems
to have a fascinating appeal to theologically unwary or academically ambitious
souls” (p. 21.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The author’s affiliations (see back cover) may be
irreconcilable with this book’s message.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Content: A- (New Evangelicalism defined, exposed,
and refuted.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style: A-
(Concisely communicated.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Tone: B
(Quaint but true.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading
Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it; share it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book: let
it go.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> C: read only if you
have to.</span><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-89567725371543133082013-10-21T15:01:00.000-06:002013-10-21T15:01:20.672-06:00JONATHAN EDWARDS, SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD AND OTHER WRITINGS (BOOK REPORT 28)<h3>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">GABOURY’S
CRITICAL BOOK REPORT</span></h3>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><b>Jonathan Edwards, <i>Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God and other Writings</i> (1700’s; <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Nashville</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Tennessee</st1:state></st1:place>:
Thomas Nelson, 2000), 314 pp.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCkWSI9ynI4zalWN0E-1hDMbIjvNMfRDBgSiD-AXw1IO82jTUVhyphenhyphenlrK551Lryq4mWIsjrAr3afi3oujhN5I2hL6MXiL7u2UgIYQiAXrGUb0_Lka8ZxCVttOdEU42MY8t5qOLfb7jqvQsaR/s1600/edwards+thomas+nelson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCkWSI9ynI4zalWN0E-1hDMbIjvNMfRDBgSiD-AXw1IO82jTUVhyphenhyphenlrK551Lryq4mWIsjrAr3afi3oujhN5I2hL6MXiL7u2UgIYQiAXrGUb0_Lka8ZxCVttOdEU42MY8t5qOLfb7jqvQsaR/s1600/edwards+thomas+nelson.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The selection contains four sermons, <i>An Essay on the Trinity</i>, and the <i>Freedom of the Will. </i>This is a very <i>odd </i>selection. <i>Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God </i>is as mighty a sermon as the
title promises. And it was mightily used by God to awaken sinners: “Those of
you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell
longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber” (p.
16.) The Presence is felt in that sermon more than in the other three, though
all are good. The essay on the trinity, by today’s standard, is also good, but
it does not compare well with so much else that Edwards has written. The
rhetoric is complicated, and it is a real pain to decipher. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The <i>Freedom of
the Will</i> must be about as abstract and esoteric as any theorem in
existence. I have little doubt that Edwards is right and the Arminian is wrong.
But who is sharp enough to follow Edwards down such narrow corridors of reason?
Like most philosophy, this must be gotten through only by the stubborn reader.
Who can labor through this without leaving so many parts unknown? The
difference between Necessity and necessary, and between impossible and
Impossibility, are these necessary to state and possible to fathom? (p. 125.)
About Edwards’ philosophical subtleties, John Erskine says this in his <i>Advertisement </i>(1774) to Edwards’ <i>History of Redemption</i>: “the abstruse
nature of the subject, or the subtle objections of opposers of the truth, led
him to more abstract and metaphysical reasonings.” (He is not speaking there, <i>of</i> the <i>History of Redemption, </i>though.) Edwards’ <i>Freedom of the Will</i> is the domain of “divines, metaphysicians, and
logical writers,” as Mr. W. the Editor calls them in a note (not in this
edition.) This being the case, do we not require the <i>full </i>disclosure of what Edwards worked so hard to prove before we
can hope to grasp more than a few slivers of what he meant? When <i>Volume One</i> of Edwards’ <i>Works</i> providentially came into my hands,
I discovered that I had struggled to understand the <i>Freedom of the Will</i> with only part of the treatise to read! Thanks
Nelson Publishers!<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Over twenty percent of the <i>Will</i> is missing in <i>Sinners in
the Hands of an Angry God and other Writings</i> by Thomas Nelson Publishers.
There is no indication of omission in the Publisher’s Preface, and none in the
Introduction—yet the <i>Will</i>’s Preface,
its Footnotes, even <i>vast Sections </i>of
the grand Treatise itself, and the Appendix, and even the Conclusion—are all
omitted! On Nelson’s final page, it says, <i>The
End</i>, as if to cause the impression that we’ve just read the full version.
With something as important and hard to comprehend as the operation of man’s
will, by which our choice for evil or good is made in consequence to eternity,
what are we to make of Nelson’s deletions? Even the conclusion is dropped from
the <i>Farewell Sermon</i>, which is where
Edwards extends his love to that guilty, ungrateful congregation that
dishonorably voted him out. It’s as if this selection of abridged material is
painstakingly calculated to give the reader a low opinion of Edwards. I
recommend Hendrickson’s edition of his <i>Works.</i> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">For help in understanding Edwards’ treatise on the
will, I recommend the essay by William Cunningham: <i>Calvinism, and the Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity. </i>This may be
found in <i>The Reformers and the Theology
of the Reformation </i>(1862.) </span><i style="font-size: 12pt;"> </i><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Content: ? (This <i>Nelson
Royal Classic</i> is a royal rip-off.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style: ?
(Nothing is so disorienting as omission.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Tone: ?
(Abridgments are ugly; beguiling Publishers, uglier.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it;
share it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book: let it go.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> C: read only if you
have to.</span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-73678830396585747242013-10-10T12:52:00.000-06:002013-10-10T12:52:26.937-06:00CONFIRMING THE WITNESS OF CHRIST (SERMON SKETCH 17)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent blog
feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction from
the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch will be
indicated at the bottom of each post.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b>Confirming
the Witness of Christ</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>“Even as the
testimony of Christ was confirmed in you” (1 Corinthians 1.6.)</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction. </i>The most gifted church is not always the healthiest.
The Corinthian church was first-class. But it was one of the worst in all <st1:country-region w:st="on">Greece</st1:country-region>. Gifts
are no good, even evil, unless consecrated to the service of God. He who buries
his ten talents may expect to be given over to the tormentor. We must judge
men, not by their talents, but by the use they make of them. Some Corinthians
could work miracles. Now the church needs no such support. Therefore God has
left us without extraordinary gifts. But we must use the gifts we have to
confirm the testimony of Christ Jesus. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) The Testimony of Christ Jesus. </i>That this world is fallen is the
first truth in theology. God might justly have left the world to perish. But
being full of mercy, he determined to send the Mediator to restore it, and save
the elect of God. Beginning with Abel, God sent forth a priesthood of
testifiers. Enoch walked with God, Moses climbed the steep sides of Sinai.
During the times of the judges and kings, truth ran in a shallow stream. Next
came a Nathan or Elijah, then the eloquent Isaiah and the soaring Ezekiel.
Behind these came the minor prophets. God might deluge the world with water.
But never would he extinguish the flame of testimony. The stream of man’s
wickedness and of time may be crossed by stepping-stones of testimony, from
Noah to Abraham to Moses, and so on. The last stepping-stone is Jesus Christ.
John speaks of Christ as ‘the faithful witness’ (Revelation 1.5.) Now, then, I
am not dishonoring my Master by calling him a ‘witness.’ He is the last
witness, the greatest witness. Christ witnesses <i>directly for himself. </i>Jeremiah and Daniel spake only what God had
revealed to them. Christ’s testimony was <i>uniform.
</i>We cannot say that of any other, whether Noah, David, or Abraham. These
were certainly good testifiers. But sin has left a plague-spot upon them all.
Sin never contradicted Christ’s testimony. Further, Christ’s testimony was <i>perfectly full. </i>Other men gave testimony
to parts of truth. There was more of God revealed by Christ than in the works
of creation and in all the prophets. He testified to all God’s attributes: to
God’s mercy by healing the lame; to his power by stilling the wind; to his
justice by languishing on Cavalry. I bless God that there are so many
denominations. We have different men to defend different kinds of truths.
Christ defended and preached all. And mark, Christ’s testimony was <i>final. </i>He said <i>finis</i> to the canon of revelation. All who come after him are
confirmers of his testimony. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) The Testimony of Christ is to be Confirmed in You. </i>The best
confirmation of gospel truth is inside the Christian. I love ‘Paley’s
Evidences.’ But I never need them for my own use. The witness inside me defies
all infidelity. Says John Newton, life is too short to be spent reading
contradictions of my religion. O, says the Christian, do not tell me there is
no power in religion, for I have felt it. Otherwise, I would never have
changed. Sometimes persons come asking me to confirm the truth outside of them.
I cannot do that. I want them to have the truth confirmed in them. Try religion
yourself, and you will see its power. O, it is a blessed thing to trust in the
Lord. It is also our business to so live that we might be the means of
confirming the truth in others. Wicked men do not read the Bible; they read
Christians. With a careful eye they watch how they live. O, may you have grace
to live in such a way that the world will find no fault in you.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection from Conclusion. </i>“Now, my friends, to close…If you can
die without fear, or repining, or remorse, knowing that you are forgiven—if you
can die with the song of victory on your lips, and with the smile of joy upon
your countenance, then you will confirm the witness of Christ.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched
by M. H. Gaboury.}</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_kP87rwrTacBi21pHT6-lRblKttPUS9MC9fWPsHFCj5Y36KQ0p1nrP8LPZSgOnVW2ZsxHCarf9rcf6tu0At1uWmyBwokli0ovqqucH8JmJdqkgJi9B5KFU8piBrKnX4zS-e7jzVvP8wKd/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi_kP87rwrTacBi21pHT6-lRblKttPUS9MC9fWPsHFCj5Y36KQ0p1nrP8LPZSgOnVW2ZsxHCarf9rcf6tu0At1uWmyBwokli0ovqqucH8JmJdqkgJi9B5KFU8piBrKnX4zS-e7jzVvP8wKd/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-38216832805626149802013-10-03T21:53:00.000-06:002013-10-03T21:53:43.274-06:00DONALD D. CROWE, CREATION WITHOUT COMPROMISE (BOOK REPORT 27)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>GABOURY'S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b>Donald D. Crowe, <i>Creation Without Compromise</i> (<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Brisbane</st1:city>,
<st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region></st1:place>:
Creation Ministries International, 2009), 296 pp.</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><b><br /></b></span></div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDW5oTGd5ghzLUkF7iXHeGb3MUWT6clZPK0hFJ9oMj3cMD36qmDJV5HdXPzVYfXDkNYsnD-KtEH8N762Yxk4jRy29krcLK5iYwAG91J1-jA_xIP9GQzProKdX7Q4k5aTbDiyLRebFamKh-/s1600/creation+without+compromise.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDW5oTGd5ghzLUkF7iXHeGb3MUWT6clZPK0hFJ9oMj3cMD36qmDJV5HdXPzVYfXDkNYsnD-KtEH8N762Yxk4jRy29krcLK5iYwAG91J1-jA_xIP9GQzProKdX7Q4k5aTbDiyLRebFamKh-/s400/creation+without+compromise.jpg" width="343" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: x-large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Evils like eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and
genocide are more acceptable from the standpoint of believing that man is an
evolved ape than from the view of man being made in the image of God (p. 17.)
If ‘survival of the fittest’ is the method by which man came into his own, then
why not continue to exploit the weak? (p. 239.) A Darwinian struggle for
existence involves no matter of right or wrong (p. 266.) “The survival of the
fittest necessarily involves the death of the less fit” (p. 265.) Therefore it
remains relevant and necessary to weigh the theory of evolution against the
biblical account of creation, to decide for one of the other, and to promote
the truth. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The theory of evolution still lacks the fossil
evidence that is needed to back it up (p. 88.) Not only this, but it has no
answer as to how the universe came from a speck, how randomness came to order,
how inanimate matter came to life, or how life proceeded to intelligence (p.
276.) <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin</st1:place></st1:city>
admitted that complexity coming about by natural selection to be an absurd
proposition (p. 103.) In his most influential book may be found many
suppositions just on one page (p. 100.) If a hypothesis (like the theory of
evolution) seems uncertain, it is wise to maintain our position (for creation,
p. 142.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The present immoral situation that we are in came
about through a gradual dismissal of biblical content. Supernaturalism was first
set aside, then the moral system (p. 256.) Donald C. Crowe would convince us to
take the Bible seriously, not only on matters touching the supernatural and
moral, but the cosmological and scientific as well. That the Bible was ‘not
written to tell us how the heavens go, but how to go to heaven’ is an apology
that he considers a compromise (p. 202.) Moreover, he believes that the
genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are to be taken as if they yield to us a
detailed record of transpired years from the days of Adam to Abraham. This is
why, I suppose, that he is able to pigeonhole the scattering that occurred at
the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">tower</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Babel</st1:placename></st1:place> at ‘about 2242 B. C.’ (p 22.) In
short, he defends the chronological scheme of Archbishop Ussher (p. 62.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">It is true that the genealogies of
Genesis 5 and 11 present a more ‘interlocking format’ than does Matthew 1,
which makes it more problematic to justify hidden years between persons (pp.
67, 68, 179.) But William Green (1890), strongly criticized by Mr. Crowe, would
have us consider (in <i>Evolution and
Antiquity</i> by J. D. Thomas<i>, </i>p. 59)
that the impression we get from reading the narrative concerning Abraham is
that the persons carried through the Flood had passed away long before Abraham
was born. Was the death of Noah and the birth of Abraham really separated by
just two years, as Mr. Crowe insists? (p. 63.) It doesn’t feel like it when you
read the life of Abraham in Genesis. That the Bible does not ‘state a date of
creation’ is a statement that Mr. Crowe will not bear (p. 288.) The man is so
wild with zeal to convince us of a certain, precise, inspired chronology that
he unleashes insupportable allegations against Green, Charles Hodge, B. B.
Warfield, and even C. H. Spurgeon. Maybe
Spurgeon asserted, in one sermon or other, the existence of ‘pre-Adamite
humanoids,’ as Crowe alleges on page 244. But do ‘races of creatures’ (p. 243)
have to mean ‘humanoids’? Spurgeon speaks there of ‘races of creatures’ created
by God ‘before he tried his hand on man.’ We might disagree with that. But the
quote on page 243 does not support what Crowe alleges on page 244. Because
Green points out the names that are omitted from the genealogy of Matthew 1,
does that amount to the passage being ‘abused in order to discredit Genesis’?
(p. 60.) Was it Green’s object to abuse Scripture in order to discredit
Scripture? Really, what Crowe approves of on the next page, in the words of
Henry Morris, is not far from what Green contends: that Genesis 5 contains “the
only reliable chronological framework we have for the antediluvian period of
history.” Does a ‘framework’ mean an exact delineation of years? Does Henry
Morris intend for us to take what he says that way? Or is Crowe just fishing
for support where none can be found? When Hodge asserts that the Church has been
forced to accommodate scientific discoveries, does that mean that Hodge is
guilty of destroying Genesis? (pp. 115, 116.) An allegation like that does not
accord with calling Hodge a great defender of the faith (p. 109.) Moreover, the
quotes that are gathered from the works of Hodge do not contain the concessions
to evolution that Crowe alleges. I do not see from these quotes any evidence of
Hodge being a ‘piecemeal accommodating apologist’ (p. 124.) As far as I can
see, Hodge maintains the same ground as the man that Crowe finds no fault with:
R. L. Dabney. Though Warfield sometimes concedes too much to evolution (pp.
158, 174), is it fair to put incriminating words in his mouth? From page 163:
“‘The Bible tells us nothing about the mode of creation’ is little more than a
euphemism for ‘I do not accept what the Bible tells us about the mode of
creation.’” No source is cited for this, and calling the statement a euphemism
for not accepting what the Bible says is unfair. If one does not believe that
the Bible teaches a certain thing, then it is hardly an issue of not accepting
what the Bible says about it. The lack of proof for Crowe’s many allegations
begs another criticism regarding yet another ‘quote.’ If you claim that H. G.
Wells wrote that inferior races ought to be exterminated, would it not,
considering the seriousness of the charge, be kind and prudent to cite the
original work in which the statement was made instead of relying on secondhand
sources? (p. 268.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">After all of his ranting and raving against
Spurgeon, Green, Hodge, and Warfield, Mr. Crowe attempts <i>An Exegetical Study of Genesis, </i>which I did not find compelling at
all. It did not come close to convincing me of Crowe’s very particular <i>Creation Without Compromise. </i>I found it
not only unconvincing, but confusing also. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">It is true that “Christianity has no place for
random chance; evolution has no place for God’s design” (p. 25.) But Crowe’s <i>Creation Without Compromise </i>is not the
book that I would recommend for showing the truth of this. In this book may be
found a store of facts by which to expose the falsehoods of evolution and to
highlight the truthfulness of the biblical account. It contains enlightening
facts on the characters and events that helped to occasion Darwinism, like the
writings of <st1:city w:st="on">Darwin</st1:city>’s grandfather and the death
of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin</st1:place></st1:city>’s
daughter (pp. 84, 89, 91, 159.) The liberal scholar’s contradictory use of
Scripture is nicely shown (p. 169.) The contents of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Darwin</st1:place></st1:city>’s <i>Origin
of Species </i>are neatly summed up (p. 97.) There is more than one instance of
wit: “While the ‘dogmatic agnostic’ may be an oxymoron, it is not an endangered
species” (p. 87.) And our interest is heightened by the mention of some old
books in which the great controversy between evolution and creation was waged
when still in its infant stage (pp. 194, 195, 197.) But the author of <i>Creation Without Compromise </i>is often
unfair, frequently nasty, and his exegesis is muddling and uneventful.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><i style="font-size: 12pt;"> </i><span style="font-size: small;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;">Content: B (An attempt to establish creationist
boundaries.)</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style: B (Commonplace.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Tone: C (Overconfident, condescending, and
slanderous.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it;
share it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book: let it go.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="font-size: large;">
C: read only if you have to.</span></div>
</div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-17123692468246359002013-09-30T20:17:00.000-06:002013-09-30T20:17:23.522-06:00BALMORAL BIBLE CHAPEL, BELIEVE AND GROW (SERMON ANALYSIS 7)<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">October 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This is the second
sermon by Mr. Fox to review, and the seventh from Balmoral Bible Chapel. We
listened by podcast. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Mr. Fox, Balmoral
Bible Chapel, September 18<sup>th</sup>, 2011, <i>Believe and Grow. <o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Summary:</i> (Mr. Fox begins by touching
on his past; he then reads part of Psalm 78; he follows that up with a word on
the nature of the Church and the responsibility of discipleship; then he reads
from John 20.30, 31; and then he goes over some basics on the apostle John.)
What we want to do now is to look at John’s life after the cross, after the
resurrection. This is a great time of reformation in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Judaism is coming to a
close. John is witnessing the Holy Spirit being poured out on Pentecost. He’s
part of all of this. John begins to see the older apostles dying, one by one.
But he’s journeying through that in faith. Many are coming to Christ, and
trusting in his sacrifice, but many are not. Eventually John is put into a pot
of boiling oil. During all this persecution, he is a faithful example of suffering.
Praise God! He is the only apostle to die of natural causes. So he is sent to
an island. There he gets an incredible revelation. I want to connect an
important dot for you: John was a man who made disciples; he taught, baptized,
and taught others how to make disciples. One of his disciples was Polycarp,
bishop of <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Smyrna</st1:place></st1:city>.
John tells him in that letter to expect persecution. Polycarp gets tied to a
stake and lit on fire. But nothing happens to him. He goes on proclaiming the
praises of God, the wonderful works of Jesus. Finally, they hit him with a
spear to shut him up and kill him. That brings us back to John, my favorite
pastor. (He reads 1 John 2.1.) That’s the heart of the Father. Back to John 20.
The signs recorded there are for our benefit, that we might believe on the Lord
Jesus Christ and have life. To believe is to trust that Jesus is the Christ,
that he is sent by the Father as the Messiah that the Old Testament prophets
pointed to. It’s in his name alone that we have life, salvation. Jesus Christ
is God. None but God could redeem us or justify us. None but God can make us
holy. None but God can bring us to heaven. (He closes with an exhortation to
study and teach at home, then says a prayer.)
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Remarks: </i>The only positive points we
can come up with are these: Mr. Fox reads the Bible with seriousness and
enthusiasm; he states that faith means trust; he stresses that faith must be in
Jesus Christ alone; and he mentions a string of doctrines near the end. If the
sermon were good enough to be called tolerable, we could devote more time and
space to speaking positively. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">For content, spirit, form, and method, this sermon
is one of the most poverty-stricken that we have ever heard. In a word, this
sermon is worthless.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The content. Was the apostle John a disciple of John
the Baptist? Maybe he was, but where did Mr. Fox get the proof? He didn’t get
it from the Bible. He states the opinion so matter-of-factly that persons
knowing no more than Mr. Fox does might simply receive the dubious dogma as a
biblical fact. And what if someone decides to check this assertion out by the
Bible? He will find that the Bible says no such thing and he will be tempted to
doubt the religion that Mr. Fox professes. This is why opinions that are
biblically insupportable need to be tempered. Stating opinions from the pulpit
as if they are facts taken straight from the Bible, even on minor matters, can
cause unbelievers to become more skeptical and cynical than they already are.
They will doubt some particulars, and on good grounds, and then they will
resolve to continue disbelieving the Christian message. A mistake like this on
the beginnings of John is not a large doctrinal fault. But it goes a long way
toward making a listener suspicious. Why should a listener be comfortable believing
anything Mr. Fox has to say? He has no reason to. We found two sources on the
internet for this opinion on John: allaboutjesus.org and Wikapedia. (We do not,
of course, mention Wikapedia as a reliable source for interpretation of sacred
truth; we mention it because it seems that Mr. Fox may have used that secular
site to get some of his sermon material from.) We did not find this opinion
about John among the commentators that <i>we</i>
resort to: like Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, and Adam Clarke. We did find it
in Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown, where it is dogmatically stated, but without
reference to the Bible because the opinion cannot be found there. What about
the apostle John being dipped into hot oil without suffering any harm? This
‘anecdote’ can be found on Wikapedia too, which mentions Tertullian for a
source. John Foxe, in his <i>Acts and
Monuments, </i>gives the story as a legend that may be true. He’s a bit of a
heavyweight. But usually, when you find this story being shared in a reputable
book, it is presented as a legend, not a historical event. And that is the
safest way to handle extra-biblical, sensational anecdotes that touch on
biblical characters, themes, or doctrines. State mere opinion as fact about
some subject in the Bible, and what happens? People listening to you believe
it, the opinion spreads, and what may be merely legendary begins to loom as
large as biblical truth. Is that not how the cult of Mary began? Begin to throw
opinions out as facts, and the thin edge of the wedge has begun, and heresies
will follow through the gap. Both Albert Barnes and Jamieson, Fausset, &
Brown are very careful to give this story out as legendary. No matter which way
we lean, either this way or that, a story like this must be shared with reserve
and qualification. Mr. Fox does not exercise any caution. What about Polycarp
being lit on fire and ‘nothing happens to him.’ This is a misrepresentation of
how the story is generally related. No doubt Mr. Fox gives it out like this in
order to parallel with, and build on, what he believes happened to John in the
notion of boiling oil. Even Wikapedia (which we never recommend as a source to
go to for confirmation of any sacred matter) is more careful than Mr. Fox is.
There it says that Polycarp was stabbed when the fire failed to touch him. This
agrees with John Foxe’s communication on the same: the flames encircled his
body like an arch, and so the executioner was ordered to put him to death by
piercing. (John Foxe probably gets carried away when he adds that the blood came
out so much as to extinguish the fire.) What should be especially taken note of
is that the way Mr. Fox presents the story of Polycarp confirms what we warned
of above: an opinion given out as a fact is the thin edge of the wedge for more
of the same; it is the avenue making way for more. Mr. Fox does not stop with
stating the doubtful story about John being dipped in oil and not suffering
harm from it. The temptation is to build on this, to go a little further for
effect. And this is probably why we get the strange spin from him on the
martyrdom of Polycarp. Just look at how these ‘accounts’ are presented by Mr.
Fox. The apostle John is dipped in oil and ‘nothing happens.’ And so Polycarp
is lit on fire and ‘nothing happens to him.’ Do you see the progression of
sinful assumption here? Mr. Fox encourages his crowd to read Commentaries. But
he does not mention any. Maybe he’s too embarrassed to say who is sources are.
Either this pastor reads good Commentaries carelessly (not minding the
provisos), or he reads to receive whatever uncritical Commentaries have to say.
In either case, he ends up preaching uncritical remarks from the pulpit. What
we have said so far could leave the impression that this sermon contains actual
content, albeit of doubtful legitimacy. In truth, there is almost nothing in
it. The history of himself, his own sons being sons of thunder, the notice of
his mentor’s death, the word ‘church’ being reserved for persons, not
buildings: this is pretty much what the sermon consists of, and all of this
space-filling, time-consuming information has nothing at all to do with the
title of the sermon: ‘Believe and Grow.’ And if you are going to give out your
testimony, even in part, is it not a good idea to tell us something more
significant about it than that you were picked up by a Presbyterian bus and
brought to church? Should such vacuous biography convince anyone that you got
saved? There just isn’t any content in this message: not in the testimony, and
not in what follows it. We have encountered this often by now: pastors talk a
lot about what they aim to say, but they end up saying nothing. There can be no
idea in this pastor’s head that his job is to wrestle with a text of Scripture
in order to get some substance out of it. The idea should be there, for this is
what he tells his listeners to do: “to wrestle with the things that the Bible
teaches concerning the book of John.” Those are his words exactly. What kind of
Bible-school could have been content to send a man out to teach who has not even
learned that the Scriptures must be mined? The doctrines he tacks on at the end
are so disconnected from the rest of the sermon that we wonder why they even
appear. There is no sense of progression here, no connexions, no reason, no
content, and the result is a confusing mess. Almost any man with a wee bit of
talent for speaking, any man, saved or unsaved, could give us, without any
study, more biblical truth than what this sermon contains. This pastor gives us
nothing. How can the Holy Spirit use a message that has nothing in it? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The spirit. The spirit of this sermon is like the
juvenile, immature atmosphere that swirls around the campfire at your
conventional Bible-camp for teenagers. There you might hear someone read a
verse, and then remark, ‘That’s the heart of the Father.’ Mr. Fox, this is no
acute observation. The whole Bible is the heart of the Father. Another error of
the spiritual sort is committed when the meeting at the mount of
transfiguration is brought up. Peter wanted to raise tabernacles, or booths,
there. But maybe it wouldn’t be hip enough to use biblical terminology. So
let’s have Peter say something like, ‘Let’s just camp here.’ Yes, and maybe
they should have cracked open a twelve-pack or even a two-four! Maybe they
might have put some steaks on the bar-b! That’s what Mr. Fox’s street-style is
suggestive of, and what it may yet come to if he doesn’t get sanctified. At
some other point in the sermon, he remarks, ‘How’s about the suffering in the
garden?’ Yes, how’s about it, Mr. Pastor, how’s about actually telling us
something about the tormenting event that led to the death that you claim to be
saved by? How about doing some work on your sermon so that death can be
elevated in the eyes of the people who have come before you to receive
Communion? How about becoming a trained, serious, holy pastor of souls? How
about that? Another fault is committed when he goes on about who his favorites
are. The apostle John is his favorite pastor. The apostle Paul is his favorite
theologian. And the theology of Paul trumps that of J. C. Did you know that?
When I heard this comment, my first impression was that there must be some
pastor going by those initials in the congregation. But then I began to wonder.
Is that possibly a reference to Jesus Christ? I have since learned that J. C.
for Jesus Christ is popular shorthand among churchgoers these days. The Analyst
must get out more, for he did not know this! That is an amazingly telling
anecdote! Is that where churchgoers are at, spiritually? We can be so familiar
with the Saviour of our soul that we may refer to him by an acronym now?! Oh,
he must be on the same level as Pastor Dan, Pastor Shane, and those guys! What
a marvelous revelation! It must be so easy to get a high place in heaven when
the Person who decides on whether you get there or not is your bosom-chum! Now,
having John for a favorite pastor, Paul for a favorite theologian, and to
maintain that the theology of Paul trumps that of our Lord, what does this
remind us of? (Let’s pass quickly over the fact that to put the sayings of
Jesus and the writings of Paul in competition with one another is a false
dichotomy since the Spirit is the underlying Author of <i>all</i> Revelation.) We stated in the first analysis that Balmoral has,
to our appearance, a babe in its pulpit. And here is more evidence that he is
in fact no more than a babe, and possibly something less. His emphasis on who
his favorites are reminds us of the baby Corinthians when they were choosing
favorites: “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ”
(1 Corinthians 1.12.) Mr. Fox, “was Paul crucified for you?” (verse 13.) If you
are truly saved by faith in Jesus Christ, take heart, little Corinthian, for
“all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas” (3.21, 22.) You are
on the verge of idolizing John and Paul. And, “Ye have not so learned Christ”
(Ephesians 4.20.) The spirit of this sermon is babyish and irreverent. By the
pastor’s way of speaking, you get the feeling that if he met Jesus, he would,
instead of falling down to worship, punch him on the shoulder, and exclaim, ‘J.
C., how’s it going, dude!’ And maybe after punching him on the shoulder, he
would take Jesus aside to discuss who the best theologian is. Try addressing
the Lord Jesus Christ as ‘J. C.’ at the second coming and see how far you get
into God’s kingdom! Let’s wait and see if the Lord’s theology is ‘trumped’ on <i>that</i> day! (If the pastor means to denote
some peer by the acronym, we apologize for making an issue out of nothing. We
both hope and doubt that the apology is necessary.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The form and method. A pastor should preach his
text, or announce that preaching will be trumped by testimony today, or fold
his testimony into the sermon somewhere, succinctly. To have your testimony (if
we may call it that) take up more than half your sermon, what is this done for?
Because you have nothing to say? Because you have no real sermon on ‘believe
and grow’ after all? It seems like this pastor went all over his imagination
and disreputable commentaries in search of sermon material, then scattered
these bits pell-mell and then called the grubby pile a sermon: <i>fait accompli.</i> The first sermon of his
that we reviewed was ordered like so: speech about being a pastor; textual
context; reading of passage; preaching; prayer; preaching. This one is ordered
like so: testimony; reading of passage; chat about Balmoral; preaching; chat on
family worship; prayer. He has no fixed idea on how to order a sermon. It’s
like he got his methodology, not from a reputable Bible college, but from a
commercial for Bits N’ Bites: ‘every handful is whole new ballgame.’ When there
is no rational arrangement to guide an effort, the production will look like an
object created during a fit of madness. The sermon doesn’t even begin until
minute eighteen! Then, not only does nothing of consequence happen, but the
sermon lasts for nine minutes, at which time it is entirely abandoned to make
way for another chitchat! Now that should seem like madness to anyone who cares
for order. When there is no order, there is no flow, and therefore no reason to
proceed from one subject to another. This makes the pastor appear ridiculous.
For instance, after telling the story of Polycarp, he says, “This brings us
back to John chapter 20.” No it doesn’t. It brings us nowhere. He’s just
jarring into another disconnected segment: reaching for the next piece from his
bag of Bits N’ Bites. There is no order because no good sermon prep was done.
That’s what it comes down to. This pastor fails to show up for work, as it
were. He might as well be absent for all the good this sermon can do. Just look
at the nonsense that happens when a sermon has nothing to say: “I want to
connect an important dot for you: John was a man who made disciples.” Does
anyone in church need a dot like that connected? Who in the whole wide world,
except for a few jungle natives, needs that dot connected? This is what we mean
when we say that this sermon is about nothing. It is absurd enough to laugh at.
But we reprove ourselves for laughing. The pulpit is in a bad way! That’s no
laughing matter. The elemental cause of this disaster is whatever training
center this man was unleashed from. Do professors really tell their students to
go about any order at all in the construction and delivery of sermons? What are
they thinking, anyway, giving out licenses to preach to men who have no idea
how to command a pulpit? The professors, whoever they are, cannot be very fit
men themselves. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Conclusion.
</i>There is some talk
here about the need to press into Christ and to make disciples. But what these
acts imply is never told. There is some talk, too, on the necessity of study.
But the only thing we get on that is the poor example Mr. Fox sets. What an
insult to be told to study by a pastor, who not only does not do it himself,
but who has no idea how! The people are told to go out and learn. But being
taught nothing about how that may be done, what will happen but some
disorganized aimless effort? When there is no teaching from the pulpit, how
will your disciples learn and make disciples? To call this sermon ‘believe and
grow’ is an insult to these very words. You would think, or even hope, that
some of the more mature saints in this church would rise up, raise a ruckus,
and get this man relieved from his charge. That would be the responsible,
merciful thing to do. A mature congregation would have him sit in the pew for
instruction purposes. Pulpit work has become a sideshow, and few persons
realize it. We are not required, you know, to be so gracious as to believe this
man was called by God to pulpit-speak. The Bible is not that gracious. We do
not have to exceed the Bible in grace. “A bishop then must be blameless…apt to
teach” (1 Timothy 3.2.) Mr. Fox may be a fine family man, a nice guy, and
charming to all, but the one thing he is not is the thing a bishop must be:
‘apt to teach.’ There must be some precious few souls in this church who are
being tortured by sermons like this one. To patiently endure without saying
something is a terrible sin to the pastor and to the body as a whole. If
someone is working, say, in the oil industry, but he’s not cutting the mustard,
then he gets told that he should move on and get into something his
capabilities and talents can handle. Why shrink so much from doing the same here?
A major qualification for the ministry is aptitude for teaching. The Bible
tells us so. The Bible should be obeyed, especially when it is most
uncomfortable to do so. There is some talk in this sermon about martyrdom.
Would this message encourage a saint to die for his faith? Would it show anyone
what the gospel is? A sermon called ‘believe and grow’ should accomplish both
of these things. It does nothing. Like when John was in the oil and Polycarp
was in the fire, ‘nothing happens.’ This pastor may be a saved man. But we will
raise a question just in case. If faith without works is dead, and he is
failing this badly at his greatest work, is his faith dead or alive? It is
easier to suppose him saved if we can leave out of consideration his
ministerial work. If we must consider it a work, then what shall be said about
his faith, for can his faith be proved by this work? If we accept that he has
not been truly called to do what he’s doing, then we at least might know his
Christianity by other fruits than ministerial. Moreover, we have a right to
know more about his faith than what he tells us in his testimony before we
believe it to be genuine. It’s not wrong to desire more than nothing. Listener,
go back and listen, please, to the beginning of this sermon. Listen close to
this man’s testimony. See if there is even one doctrine there; see if you can
detect a conversion there; see if you can call that talk a testimony of faith.
Go and listen, and you will not find any mention of repentance, faith,
justification, redemption, cross, or blood there; you will find nothing like
that in there at all. There is nothing there but a ride to church and a
divorce. Is he called by God to do what he is attempting but failing to do?
There is nothing to convince us that he is called, nothing in the content,
nothing in the spirit, nothing in the form, and nothing in the method by which
the form is discharged. Is he a saved man? We wish so. But there is nothing to
convince us of that in this sermon, not by the testimony, and not because of
any content or spirit. No good can be done for this man’s soul by being as nice
to him as he himself comes across. There is a time to be nice; but this is a
time to refrain from doing so. We must let honesty have its way once the
examination has yielded its deductions. No one should get upset when proofs on
calling and salvation are desired and asked of him. We should all be blessed to
receive queries that compel us to self-examination. If someone is upset on Mr.
Fox’s behalf, then that person should ask himself if it’s a good idea to
discourage someone from examining his present standing with God. </span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-83165157059048078312013-09-26T20:52:00.000-06:002013-09-26T20:52:14.323-06:00C. H. SPURGEON, REVIVAL YEAR SERMONS (BOOK REPORT 26)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>GABOURY'S CRITICAL BOOK
REPORT</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>C.
H. Spurgeon, <i>Revival Year Sermons</i>
(1859; <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Carlisle</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Pennsylvania</st1:state></st1:place>: The Banner of Truth Trust,
2002), 96 pp.</b></div>
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8zf_2_kp6oiR_D7l2KN0lgxj-p9zu92Azt6i3OXhHklI8EXOyz1TfWYU7DWmby_-CRsXKnYalTXRRgbGsH-gETZ37Z6OzCVazccuwZoRo5BIxzzcLBeMWWpyZ5o2ZWP0zF2Vo08BIx6GX/s1600/revival+year+sermons.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8zf_2_kp6oiR_D7l2KN0lgxj-p9zu92Azt6i3OXhHklI8EXOyz1TfWYU7DWmby_-CRsXKnYalTXRRgbGsH-gETZ37Z6OzCVazccuwZoRo5BIxzzcLBeMWWpyZ5o2ZWP0zF2Vo08BIx6GX/s400/revival+year+sermons.jpg" width="255" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">What
strikes me right away is the Calvinism of Spurgeon’s preaching, very
conspicuous in these five sermons, and in the <i>Publisher’s Introduction.</i> His emphasis on that System he justifies
by an appeal to the meaning of Scripture. Concerning ‘<i>dead</i> in trespasses and sins,’ he forcibly expounds, “When the body
is dead it is powerless; it is unable to do anything for itself; and when the
soul of a man is dead, in a spiritual sense, it must be, if there is any
meaning in the figure, utterly and entirely powerless, and unable to do
anything of itself or for itself” (p. 52.) There is total inability in that
point, total depravity. And this one point is sufficient to direct us to the
other four. I think that is what Spurgeon is getting at when he says, “But once
get the correct view, that man is utterly fallen, powerless, guilty, defiled,
lost, condemned, and you <i>must </i>be
sound on all points of the great gospel of Jesus Christ” (pp. 53, 54.) That <i>System </i>is of the gospel. Spurgeon would
say, and did, “Calvinism is<i> </i>the
gospel, and nothing else” (p. 16.) The Holy Spirit is not shy to use such
inflexibility to cause revival.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">How
does a young preacher preach, sometimes as much as ten times in a week, and put
together sermons of this caliber for the preaching? One thing, he was loyal to
a theological scheme that he believed with all his heart to be correct: “The
faithful minister must be plain, simple, pointed, with regard to these
doctrines. There must be no dispute about whether he believes them or not” (p.
83.) The foundation and framework he never had to adjust; he worked on a solid
floor enclosed in partitions already erected. That saves a lot of time. “After
revising his early sermons for publication many years later, he wrote, ‘I was
happy to find I had no occasion to alter any of the doctrines’” (p. 17.) Even
on limited atonement, the most inflammatory point of all, he is shamelessly
direct: “Nor do I think we can preach the gospel unless we base it upon the
special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ
wrought out upon the cross” (p. 16.) But still, as the case should always be,
Spurgeon’s call to sinners was universal: “Oh, sinner, thy life is short, and
death is hastening. Thy sins are many…Turn, turn, turn, I beseech thee” (p.
96.) Not surprisingly, he adds, “May the Holy Spirit turn thee.” A preacher
confirmed in the doctrine of total depravity cannot help but accent a need for
the Spirit. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Revival Year Sermons</i> is full of meaningful
content. There is doctrine and uncompromising evangelism here, but also a good
bit of history and experience. More particularly, there is an instructive
speech on sovereignty and responsibility, those two ‘apparently contradictory’
terms; advice on how to preach sin; encouragement for the called; fiery
entreaties for those who <i>might</i> be
called; and everything lit up by the ‘five great lights which radiate from the
cross of Christ’ (pp. 12, 13.) </span><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="font-size: large; text-align: justify;">Content: A (First rate sermons.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style: A (First rate illustrations.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Tone: A (First rate communication.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading
Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it; share it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book: let
it go.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> C: read only if you
have to.</span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-8767814959876318812013-09-17T14:09:00.003-06:002013-09-17T14:09:46.446-06:00A VIEW OF GOD'S GLORY (SERMON SKETCH 16)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent blog
feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction from
the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch will be
indicated at the bottom of each post.)</span></div>
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>A View of God's Glory</b></span><br />
<span style="text-align: center;"><br /></span>
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>“And he said, I
beseech thee, shew me thy glory” (Exodus 33.18.)</b></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction. </i>Moses could not have asked for more. This is the
highest elevation that faith ever gained. Did Moses not wonder at himself for
asking so much? Where did such faith come from? It was by communion with God.
Had Moses not received grace through communion and intercession, this petition
might have been too large for him to carry to the throne. Do you want faith
like this? Be much in secret prayer. Refer to verse 13 where Moses asked God to
show him the way. He asked for a lesser favor before he requested greater.
Build on your past petitions. Faith can scale the walls of heaven. She is a
giant grace. Be like the beggars who don’t give up asking. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) The Gracious Manifestation. </i>It is likely that Moses, with all his
knowledge of the Most High, had a vague idea that divinity might be seen.
Subtler than the secret power of electricity is the existence we call a spirit.
We could just as soon bind the winds with cords as to behold spirits with our
eyes. No form passed before Moses. He looked from behind a covering and saw,
not a person, but an attribute. What attribute will God show Moses? His
justice? His holiness? His wrath? His power? Will he bring Moses’ sins to
remembrance to show that he is omniscient? No; hear the still small voice—“I
will make all my goodness pass before thee.” Ah! the goodness of God is God’s
glory. Consider the goodness of God in creation. Who can tell it? The ravens
peck food from his liberal hands. The fishes leap. Every insect is nourished by
him. And while man lives and dies as a flower, the Lord does not forget him.
And then, think of his sovereign goodness toward his chosen people. See your
name in God’s book of predestinating, unchanging grace! Then come down to the
time of redemption, and see your Saviour bleeding and agonizing. O my soul,
there were drops of goodness before, but O, rivers now! God’s goodness is ‘past
finding out.’ I would invoke all creation to be vocal in his praise. God’s
goodness is not all that Moses saw. There was something more. God said, “I will
be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show
mercy.” There is sovereignty. God’s goodness without his sovereignty does not
completely set forth his nature. God has the right to save any one in this
chapel, or to crush all who are here. Put goodness and sovereignty together and
see God’s glory. Sovereign grace is the glory of the gospel. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) A Gracious Concealment. </i>God said to Moses, “Thou canst not see my
face and live.” Robert of Normandy lost his sight when his brother passed a
red-hot copper bowl before his face. Some doctrines, if we understood them,
would scorch our eyes out. The sinner can’t see God’s face while clothed in his
own righteousness. He must be cast into the fire of hell. The saint can’t see
God’s face and live, not because of moral disability, but because of physical
inability. I wonder if even the saints in heaven see God. We can leave that
till we get there. Certainly, no man on earth can see God’s face and live. All
we can see are the ‘back parts’ of God. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(3) The Gracious Shielding.</i> Moses had to be put in the cleft of a rock
before he could see God. O, my soul, enter into the hole in Jesus’ side. That
is the cleft of the rock where you must abide and see God. Precious Christ! may
I be found in thee when the world melts away! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection from Conclusion. </i>“There is an hour coming, when we must
all, in a certain sense, see God. We must see him as a Judge…I pray God deliver
you from hell…if you have no hiding-place, woe unto you. See you that cleft in
the rock, see that cross, see that blood. There is security…only there.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b>{This sermon by C. H.
Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched by M. H. Gaboury.}</b></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiypPc2wEH2gJSnu7TLjbtlhZjEfpFsB5brXaPmExW0HmjKuVrrJ4cJlCPzAbVVbWu8CxcjVMQnuZEICI7HS89unfLImvUE81uBIweKsDGUlD4kLqE-7EPLT8Lwta4h1oZquTvT6Cq92OxI/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiypPc2wEH2gJSnu7TLjbtlhZjEfpFsB5brXaPmExW0HmjKuVrrJ4cJlCPzAbVVbWu8CxcjVMQnuZEICI7HS89unfLImvUE81uBIweKsDGUlD4kLqE-7EPLT8Lwta4h1oZquTvT6Cq92OxI/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-2033438395876481412013-09-13T11:54:00.000-06:002013-09-13T16:42:06.700-06:00GAY PRIDE PROGRESS IN REDNECK CITY<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">There has been little visible opposition to gay pride progress in our city. There had been more if all the letters to papers had been published. Mine to the Express was denied. The article that follows is an amplification of that unpublished letter. While doing research for this article, I stumbled upon the best thing that I have ever read by a gay guy concerning gay aggression. Here is the link, from a site called pfox.org:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://pfox.org/Homosexuals_Opposed_to_Pride_Extremism.html">http://pfox.org/Homosexuals_Opposed_to_Pride_Extremism.html</a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Now to my article, preceded by a little clip in order to supply some context. Have any of our pastors addressed the recent homosexual goings on in this city? I suppose that some of them are accepting of unrepentant gays for church members, just as many of them are accepting of unrepentant adulterers and fornicators for the same. At least they are consistent.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-CtZpErjQGQDrGC52oMAX1LJMy9DSkNV0ZeDmMmvqnOfJgyL-sHlwiwAX-w8rqvWcEbHSHWCYNfYIGtfe5sSMvgsGxn-LdLLmSZUwMuRwZf3EMMVEq41NlDcG0ltrR3mxBkTvES83FAUV/s1600/gay+pride+progress+in+redneck+city.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="215" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-CtZpErjQGQDrGC52oMAX1LJMy9DSkNV0ZeDmMmvqnOfJgyL-sHlwiwAX-w8rqvWcEbHSHWCYNfYIGtfe5sSMvgsGxn-LdLLmSZUwMuRwZf3EMMVEq41NlDcG0ltrR3mxBkTvES83FAUV/s400/gay+pride+progress+in+redneck+city.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i><br /></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Red Deer
Express, </i>August
14<sup>th</sup>, 2013. Gay pride in a redneck city seems like a queer idea and
a perfect storm. But it’s just a queer idea. While I’m not in favor of
promoting violence against queer persons, it would be encouraging if rednecks
would at least frown upon queer associations. Is it still permissible to frown
at those who celebrate what to God is an abomination? If the queers have their
way, even frowning at them will be outlawed. Notice the progression. They get a
proclamation from the mayor. Next, according to event organizer, Kristol
Gallivan, they must ‘come up with bylaws’ (end of article, not pasted in here.)
There was no resistance to their gay pride fruit float. But tolerance must be
forced. That is the way queers operate. They call themselves queer, but they
don’t want to be called queer. The laws protect them, but they want bylaws too.
They are tolerated, but they whine about intolerance. Why?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Queers don’t
want to feel like exceptions in the crowd. They want to feel at ease walking
hand in hand. They want open kisses without criticism. They want to flaunt
their Heinz 57 lifestyles like Texan women do their hair. By suppressing an
already tolerant community, they hope to gain enough courage to do it all. If
they could get away with it, many of them would, I think, go so far as to
coerce non-queers into queer participation. From where do I get a notion like
that? I get it from inspired history and human psychology. Modern queers are in
harmony of spirit with the queers of old. “And they called unto <st1:place w:st="on">Lot</st1:place>, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in
to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them” (Genesis
19.5.) Queers, deep down, want proof of allegiance by mutual participation.
Thanks to God, there are fewer of them than there are of us. The record from
Genesis is not surprising in light of human psychology. What do drunks want but
everyone to join in? What do drug addicts want but addicted friends? What do
fornicators want but open marriages? What is peer pressure but a kind of force?
You are a queer thinker if you believe that queers don’t want everyone to dip
into their lifestyles. Such promiscuous participation would go a long way
toward making them feel that their abominable acts are okay. Then they would
not second-guess their queer gestures in public. Then they would handhold,
kiss, pet, and set new standards in public for everyone. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Thankfully, a
proclamation from the mayor, a reception in a bar, a multi-faith service
sanction, and an unobstructed fruit float is not a forceful enough foursome to
coerce intimate knowledge of queerdom. The queers who pounded on <st1:place w:st="on">Lot</st1:place>’s door were unsuccessful against the angels of God.
And their modern partners in crime, we should pray, will be unsuccessful due to
God’s grace unto salvation. May gay pride progress regress by God’s
regenerative act upon gay sinners. This ought to be our prayer if we believe
that fire and brimstone, if it doesn’t get you here, will get you Hereafter.
That goes for queers, rednecks, and every sinner in between. Jesus may have
walked among every kind of sinner. But he participated in no kind of sin.
Unlike our mayor, he did not honor sin with a proclamation. He faced it head on
with a denunciation: “Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matthew
4.17.) That sounds as intolerant as the edict in Leviticus 18.22. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Forget about
pushing for bylaws to conform society to sin. Non-conformity to God’s law calls
for the bylaw of repentance. Repent, turn to Jesus for justification and
forgiveness, and join the Higher Society of Heaven. Join the angels of God who
resisted gay aggression.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-84504291898590300602013-09-06T11:45:00.002-06:002013-09-06T11:45:17.973-06:00THE SIN OF UNBELIEF (SERMON SKETCH 15)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent
blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction
from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch
will be indicated at the bottom of each post.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b>The
Sin of Unbelief</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<b>“And
that lord answered the man of God…behold, <i>if</i>
the Lord should make windows in heaven, might such a thing be? And he said,
behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not eat thereof” (2 Kings
7. 19.)</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction. </i>One wise man may deliver a whole city. There was one
righteous man in the city of <st1:city w:st="on">Samaria</st1:city>—Elisha,
the servant of the Lord. Piety was extinct in the court. The king was a sinner
of the blackest dye. The people of <st1:city w:st="on">Samaria</st1:city>
had gone astray from Jehovah. A prophecy of cannibalism was fulfilled in the
streets (Deuteronomy 28.56-58.) For Elisha’s sake, the Lord sent the promise of
food. But the lord on whom the king leaned did not believe the promise.
Whereupon God pronounced his doom. And <st1:city w:st="on">Providence</st1:city>
fulfilled the pronouncement. He saw but did not enjoy.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) The Sin. </i>Either the man questioned God’s truthfulness or doubted
his power. Unbelief has more phases than the moon and more colors than the
chameleon. Unbelief will lead the sinner to distrust the ability of Christ to
save him, or to doubt the willingness of Jesus to accept him. But infidelity,
deism, and atheism are the most terrific eruptions of the volcano of unbelief.
Some professing Christians do not even believe unbelief is a sin. Oh! sirs,
believe me, could you roll all sins into one mass, they would not equal the sin
of unbelief. The damning sin of sinners is that they do not believe on Christ.
The word declares unbelief to be a sin. “He that believeth not is condemned
already, because he believeth not on the Son of God.” This is the monarch sin,
the masterpiece of Satan, the chief work of the devil. <i>Unbelief</i> <i>is the parent of all
iniquity. </i>The fall of man is very much owing to it. “Yea, hath God
said?”—this insinuated the doubt. Curiosity and the other sins followed.
Unbelief has sharpened the knife of suicide. It has mixed many a cup of poison.
Unbelief became a deicide, and murdered Jesus. It is the egg of all crime, the
seed of every offence. Everything that is evil and vile is couched in unbelief.
Unbelief in the Christian, though pardoned, is especially heinous. I would
always fulfill the precept if I always believed the promise. <i>Unbelief fosters sin. </i>Is it nothing to
you that Jesus died? Then there is unbelief between you and the cross. Only
when the Holy Spirit strikes at unbelief will sinners come to trust in Jesus. <i>Unbelief disables a man. </i>Morality is a
good thing. But your own goodness will never get you to heaven. Virtues without
faith are whitewashed sins. Peter once walked on waves. Faith was his
lifejacket; it kept him up; but unbelief sent him down. Faith fosters every
virtue; unbelief murders every one. Thousands of prayers have been strangled in
infancy by unbelief. Many a man would have been a missionary; but he had
unbelief. Make a giant unbelieving, and he becomes a dwarf. <i>Unbelief has been severely punished. </i>By
faith Noah escaped the flood. By unbelief the rest were drowned. Unbelief
caused the Jews to murder Christ. It aims a blow at divinity. <i>Unbelief is the damning sin. </i>There is
one sin for which Christ never died: the sin against the Holy Ghost. There is
no mercy for anyone dying in unbelief.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) The Punishment. </i>“Thou shalt see it with thine eyes, but shalt not
eat thereof.” That is the doom of unbelievers. As for Christians who turn their
heads from the dish prepared for them, they will have some affliction; they
will be made to eat by means of bitters in their mouths. They will be put in
prison until their appetite returns. The majority of our congregations come
just to see. A great work is going on in this chapel, but some of you do not
know anything about it. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection from Conclusion.</i> “Unbelief makes you sit here in times of
revival, and of the outpourings of God’s grace, unmoved, uncalled, unsaved…Oh,
the hell of hells will be to see our friends in heaven and ourselves lost…If
you are lost, it will be because you believed not on Christ.” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched
by M. H. Gaboury.}</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTzvZ1EsGb0Vq73_5SJahfn0H7RWrwIgfAZ5iqqsqy3dDvBEs7-lMboGI8NKxB8wcSP7Xq7nKULghq1Qw_IPzNzVPPrOiZt_kLjxXDt82f9JGvv-VfdWQBcpRsZ9a1dLaliyAZEm3rluxf/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTzvZ1EsGb0Vq73_5SJahfn0H7RWrwIgfAZ5iqqsqy3dDvBEs7-lMboGI8NKxB8wcSP7Xq7nKULghq1Qw_IPzNzVPPrOiZt_kLjxXDt82f9JGvv-VfdWQBcpRsZ9a1dLaliyAZEm3rluxf/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-36908067724343599762013-07-31T10:49:00.000-06:002013-07-31T10:49:47.312-06:00PROGRAMS IN PLACE OF PREACHING<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYI9n8MIDCYzYgx3tGxHmaVbOzqSY1a0isjiE4WFYQ8-xPewugYZFwytKyCiiwKMED2nyhACdHBcHvovHIcBIl19aNxAIe8pNZ8abBT9p9KYjWO363w_b-MKME-JHp4MFzgNvkIusfKorM/s1600/programs+in+place+of+preaching.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYI9n8MIDCYzYgx3tGxHmaVbOzqSY1a0isjiE4WFYQ8-xPewugYZFwytKyCiiwKMED2nyhACdHBcHvovHIcBIl19aNxAIe8pNZ8abBT9p9KYjWO363w_b-MKME-JHp4MFzgNvkIusfKorM/s640/programs+in+place+of+preaching.jpg" width="412" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">(<i>City Light
News,</i> June 2013.) The writer of this article is puzzled that faithlessness
and church attendance are on the increase together. The answer just happens to
be in the big question period at the head of the article: <b>?</b> Doctrinally anemic programs like Alpha (which has the big <b>?</b> on the cover of its book) are largely
responsible for the increase of both faithlessness and church attendance.
‘Creative engagement’ is less offensive and judgmental than preaching; and so
it’s an attractive way for timid Christians to give church growth a whack. You
get lots of husk but not a lot of kernel that way, many unbelievers, but few
converts. Church growth, of whatever sort, must be what Alpha pastors are
after. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This is how dull the talking heads at church
meetings are. Faithlessness and church attendance are up. The cause of this
strange harmony: faithless programs that plant infidels in God’s Church. Not
realizing what the cause is, these heads of churches (ever talking, never
preaching) put their programmed heads together around some boardroom table and
decide to take advantage of the paradox by setting up a whole campaign of
programs! Yes, <i>Alberta 2013! </i>That’s
the newest gospel replacement. Get ready, not for revival, but for a bumper
crop of faithlessness. ‘Building bridges’ has a positive, constructive sound.
The problem is that the bridges lead to everywhere but the cross. The campaign
“will provoke people to ‘Question Everything.’” Yes, people will be provoked to
question many things—except the merits of all these faithless Alpha courses!
People are distracted by many things, it says in the article. Yes, they are
distracted by many things, not the least of which are programs like Alpha! Did
Peter or Paul and their Master try to ‘creatively engage’ sinners with
innocuous programs whose way of witnessing is to make faithless sinners feel
they have faith already? No, but the New Testament model is just too
discriminate and offensive for bloodless pastors to use. All their weak hearts
can do is pump up more programs. They have no heart for preaching, no heart for
the gospel, no heart for the heart of Christianity. They’re scared right down
to their shriveled up arteries. The truths that made great preachers of old
bubble up with heat and light, our pastors turn white at the suggestion of. To
preach down to sinners a gospel from above is a horrid thing to these men. To
say ‘repent’ with distinction, detail, and exclamation is the shibboleth they
can’t utter. They are foreigners to preaching, just as the men of Ephraim were
foreigners to the word that they couldn’t pronounce. They ‘compass land and
sea’ to make proselytes to programs, but take no steps at all to becoming
proselytes to preaching in order to save the souls they gather. The gospel is
their shame; programs are their crown. Alpha is their smooth way; the Way of
Life is too rough for them. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for
it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew
first, and also to the Greek” (Romans 1.16.) And notice: “But we preach Christ
crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness” (1
Corinthians 1.23.) Many who are preached to stumble at the word and cause
trouble, like the unbelieving Jews who continually hunted the head of Paul.
Many others who are preached to regard the word as foolish, and so the
preachers of it they treat as fools. Caving in to such responses is what Paul
warned Timothy not to do: “Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of
our Lord” (2 Timothy 1.8.) Jamieson, Fausset, & Brown on this: “Paul…felt
it necessary to stir him up and guard him against the possibility of
unchristian dereliction of duty as to bold confession of Christ.” Is Alpha’s
cowardly approach a bold confession? It is because pastors have caved in to the
pressure of the possibility of persecution that they resort to programs in
place of preaching. They will not risk so much as being called fools for the
sake of preaching Christ. Caving in is what pastors do through Alpha and
similar inoffensive, seeker-friendly, creatively engaging, ecumenical-minded
courses and programs. To be ashamed of preaching Christ crucified is to be
ashamed of Christ, if anything is. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">What kind of message does God use to effect revival
but the effective, faithful preaching of his holy word? Here is the sort of
content that a revival message contains, in the words of a minister actually
used by God in a broad way: “The object was to make the impenitent feel that
they were under a righteous condemnation, that they had destroyed themselves,
that their hearts were entirely alienated from God, that in this alienation lay
their guilt and not their excuse, that, of course, they were bound to repent and
become reconciled to God without a moment’s delay, that, nevertheless, so
desperate was the depravity of their hearts that nothing short of the power of
the Holy Ghost would ever subdue it, and that God was under no obligation to
exert that power. So far as could be known at the time, and so far as the
‘fruits’ enable us to determine, these and other kindred truths were ‘the power
of God unto salvation’, to multitudes that were ready to perish. The design was
to exalt God and bring the sinner in guilty at every step, not to terrify even
the vilest transgressor so as to render him incapable of reasoning and
reflection, but to induce him, under the strong convictions of an enlightened
conscience, to ‘flee from the wrath to come’, and ‘lay hold on eternal life’”
(Heman Humphrey, in W. B. Sprague’s <i>Lectures
on Revivals of Religion</i>, p. 360<i>.</i>)
Do ministers leading Alpha<i> </i>preach
like this? I know that they do not. Do they even try? I don’t think so.
Preaching Christ crucified involves more than coaxing people to a ‘decision.’ <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Are you a pastor seeking to gain a world of
churchgoers through faithless programs? Are you willing to receive churchgoers
as church members, no matter how worldly and unrepentant they may be? Let the
Scriptures reason you out of that for the good of your own soul and the poor
multitudes that you refuse to really preach to. “For what is man advantaged, if
he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? For whosoever shall
be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when
he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels”
(Luke 9.25, 26.) If these verses seem not to touch you, then consider that you
may be spiritually blind. If you will not consider that you may be spiritually
blind, then count on it: you are spiritually blind for sure, for a man whose
eyes have been opened by the grace of God will not begrudge to examine his
profession of faith. Hath God given you a spirit of fear? (2 Timothy 1.7.)</span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-43050822602274805432013-07-29T17:18:00.000-06:002013-07-29T17:18:16.814-06:00HEALING FOR THE WOUNDED (SERMON SKETCH 14)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent
blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction
from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch
will be indicated at the bottom of each post.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b>Healing
for the Wounded: A Sermon for the Crimean Soldiers </b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>“He healeth the broken
in heart, and bindeth up their wounds” (Psalm 147.3.)</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction. </i>“He healeth the broken in heart, and bindeth up their
wounds.” The Psalmist here declares that the same mighty hand which rolls the
stars along, heals the broken heart. Oh, if we were as aware of spiritual
injuries as we are of bodily diseases, we would cry out to “the Beloved
Physician.” We are injured by the sin of our first parent, and disabled by our
own.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) The Great <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">Ill.</st1:state></st1:place>
</i>This great ill, this broken heart, what is it? There are hearts broken by <i>desertion. </i>A husband neglects the wife
he used to lavish with love. A friend deserts you. Your fellows betray you.
Children are ungrateful. Many have gone to their graves by wounds like these.
There are hearts broken by <i>bereavement. </i>Tender
wives have laid their husbands in the grave. Parents have lost beloved kids. To
such as them the world becomes cheerless and miserable. But divine grace can
uphold them. And what about our soldiers in the war? There is more grief sometimes
in one of their hurried funerals than in one of ours at home. Oh, you mourners!
Open your hearts before God. He will heal them. There are also hearts broken by
<i>poverty. </i>Hang on, and hope on! The
Feeder of sparrows cares for you! And there are spirits crushed by <i>disappointment and defeat. </i>All these
natural breakings Jehovah pays attention to. He can heal all wounds. But it is
the heart that is broken on account of its own sin that God specially delights
to heal. Bunyan says a heart like this is “considerably tumbled up and down.” <i>This </i>wounded spirit is grieved by things
like amusements and dirty songs and drinking, and requires a healing from
beyond this world. Even its religious duties bring no comfort. Nothing cheers
it. What a blessing to be broken like that! God is changing it! This heart is
truly repenting! There is pardon for sinners through Jesus Christ! Are you
anxious to be carried to God’s <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Hospital</st1:placetype>
of <st1:placename w:st="on">Mercy</st1:placename></st1:place>? Just lie down
at Jesus’ feet. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) The Great Mercy. </i>Man can cheer the afflicted and harassed. But only
God can heal the broken heart. The preacher may break it by a fiery sermon. But
only God does the healing. Be careful not to just get your wound rubbed over by
a bad physician who recommends pleasures or duties for your broken-ness. Your heart
needs to be washed in the blood of Jesus. Seek no other physician than God, and
he will do it. Plentiful in mercy, God rushes to his repenting child, and bows
over his mangled heart. He washes every wound with sacred water from the side
of Jesus. The queen may visit and comfort a soldier with royal words. But only
God visits to close the open wounds of the spirit. He is gentler than any army
surgeon, and he heals <i>forever. </i>He who
is forgiven cannot be punished. He who is born again can never perish. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection from Conclusion. </i>“Do you know that there is a hell of
eternal flame appointed for the wicked?…Canst thou endure the terrors of the
Almighty?…It may be my words are now sounding in the ear of one of my weary
wounded fellow-countrymen…You are now feeling the guilt of your life, and are
lamenting the sins of your conduct. You fear there is no hope of pardon…Hear,
then, the word of God. Thy pains for sins are God’s work in thy soul…He would
not have showed thee thy sin if he did not intend to pardon …Believe, O
troubled one, that he is able to save thee unto the uttermost, and thou shalt
not believe in vain…See…yonder crucified Man on Calvary, and mark thee that
those drops of blood are falling for <i>thee</i>,
those nailed hands are pierced <i>for thee</i>,
and that opened side contains a heart within it, full of love <i>to thee.</i>”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched
by M. H. Gaboury.<span style="font-size: 10pt;">}</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJJK9Na7k2i6fMJXdvOmL8WfZbPX8xwnpnWIqk-XpT-Aks4k-4_Evd4DtW9xcrLRxkzkLoKMSDHuYXPJM_2-x8XxlIT7m-0rR1Si7HIwabAaKZGQVMn7Fmur3MDN4M12WQJicP7kpVgp4i/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJJK9Na7k2i6fMJXdvOmL8WfZbPX8xwnpnWIqk-XpT-Aks4k-4_Evd4DtW9xcrLRxkzkLoKMSDHuYXPJM_2-x8XxlIT7m-0rR1Si7HIwabAaKZGQVMn7Fmur3MDN4M12WQJicP7kpVgp4i/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-10924243017692287952013-07-22T11:18:00.000-06:002013-07-22T11:18:41.241-06:00TEACHING CHILDREN (SERMON SKETCH 13)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent
blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction
from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch
will be indicated at the bottom of each post.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Teaching
Children</span></b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>“Come, ye children,
hearken unto me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord” (Psalm 34.11.)</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction. </i>It is worth noticing that good men often discover
their duty by being placed in humiliating circumstances. This happened to
David. Once, he pretended to be crazy to fool a king, and the children in the
street laughed at him. By the remembrance of that event, maybe, he sets out to
do something better than make children laugh. He will teach them the fear of
the Lord. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) One Doctrine. </i>Here it is: Children are able to understand religious
topics, contrary to popular opinion that says they can’t. Children often
understand these things better than geniuses do. A child capable of being
damned is capable of being saved. If teachers can’t make children understand,
it is because the teachers do not understand themselves. Anyway, God can work
upon little hearts as he pleases. Be careful not to dismiss one of these tiny
buds of grace. If a child declares love to Jesus, treat that little one as a
real member of God’s church!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) Two Encouragements. </i>First, David’s <i>example. </i>“I will teach you the fear of the Lord,” says David. You
are not too proud to follow in the steps of David the giant killer, are you?
And follow the Son of David, Jesus, who says, “Suffer little children to come
unto me.” Second, David’s <i>success. </i>“I
<i>will </i>teach you,” he says—not <i>perhaps. </i>Many volumes could be written
on the success of Sabbath-schools in teaching children. It is a noble work. Go
on in it! More shall yet be done!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(3) Three Cautions. </i>First, remember <i>who
you are teaching</i>. Children have little option of going somewhere else. And
they believe and retain error as easily as truth. Second, recall that you are
teaching <i>for God</i>. This should make
you tremble and make sure you are teaching <i>truth</i>.
Third, remember that a child <i>needs </i>teaching.
He was born in sin. He has an evil seed in his heart. It is your job to sow a
good seed there, or he will be forever lost. Be very anxious when you teach.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(4) Four Instructions. </i>“Come, ye children.” This means go and invite
them. Do not bribe them. That is a mean abuse. Just coax them to come along.
Then fill the school by teaching <i>interestingly:
</i>tell lots of stories. Next, get the children to love you. Otherwise they
will not learn. Wear a sour look while you tell a boy about Jesus, and will the
boy not think Jesus is as sour as you? Then, keep the children’s attention by
the use of many stories and pictures. Finally, stick to the lesson. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(5) Five Sunday-School Lessons. </i>Here they are: morality (what’s right
and wrong) to make them know their sins; godliness (one-on-one prayers and love
to God) to make them conscious of God’s tender care and all seeing eye; the
evil of sin to convince them of needing a Saviour; the need of a broken heart
of repentance through God’s mercy; and the blessedness of being a child of God.
Oh! Emphasize this last point. Show them how to be happy in spite of all your
troubles. And be sure not to leave out the three R’s: Ruin, Regeneration, and
Redemption. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection from Conclusion. </i>“You are a sword; God may with you slay
the child’s sin, but you can not slay it yourself. Be you therefore mindful of
this, that you must be first taught of God yourself, and then you must ask God
to teach, for unless a higher teacher than you instruct the child, that child
must perish. It is not all your instruction can save a soul: it is the blessing
of God resting on it. May God bless your labors! He will do it if you are
instant in prayer, constant in supplication; for never yet did the earnest
preacher or teacher, labor in vain.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched
by M. H. Gaboury.}</b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMnrWJdKAUhjxbEmIOBJ2rrik4FCNYf6ErxMQPcVTKmuUPJhPO5dtpe-KGGfY5r-821qxTS7RxEUNCMCosZQYa1yv854mhHB-snFS5aAfZyYyVBfcOhqiYMiOL4gPPXQfCNYx1ayHoZxUY/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMnrWJdKAUhjxbEmIOBJ2rrik4FCNYf6ErxMQPcVTKmuUPJhPO5dtpe-KGGfY5r-821qxTS7RxEUNCMCosZQYa1yv854mhHB-snFS5aAfZyYyVBfcOhqiYMiOL4gPPXQfCNYx1ayHoZxUY/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br /></b></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-45873549592614671992013-07-13T11:11:00.000-06:002013-07-13T11:11:39.038-06:00M. R. DE HAAN, THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS (BOOK REPORT 25)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><b>GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
M.
R. De Haan, <i>The Second Coming of Jesus</i>
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1944), 178 pp.<span style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWAkFjGIv-WgcAOLPV_ujqHKVIYohGcr4vnHGwvK89jGPxCKerXmYd7gN-KM_z8KNcvAdXo0TMujfDj1TW6B94sf5UfzNt9JUr8_jtLpMfPhV3gzxjkHyAELsLJRakjTtsc0nAKZiqxG9R/s1600/m+r+dehaan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWAkFjGIv-WgcAOLPV_ujqHKVIYohGcr4vnHGwvK89jGPxCKerXmYd7gN-KM_z8KNcvAdXo0TMujfDj1TW6B94sf5UfzNt9JUr8_jtLpMfPhV3gzxjkHyAELsLJRakjTtsc0nAKZiqxG9R/s400/m+r+dehaan.jpg" width="299" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: 11.0pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Once every few years I go through my boxes of books
and begin to cull. Some books I give away. Others I shred. This one will suffer
the more severe form of rejection. Its companion by the same author, <i>The Jew and Palestine in Prophecy, </i>has
already been subjected to this latter fate. Just before I began shredding the
one I will now review, I thought, ‘Why not show, in a book report, why such a
book is so deserving of a violent end?’ This is what I intend to do. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">M. R. De Haan used to be the host of <i>Radio Bible Class. </i>The messages
contained in <i>The Second Coming of Jesus </i>were
first delivered orally via the radio. Mixed in with his obsession about this
modern-day trinket called the ‘pre-tribulation rapture’ are doctrinal
statements that readers may be blessed by. “Two things can alarm us: the law
and death, but the law cannot touch the believer because its penalty has been
paid, and death cannot harm us because the sting of death is gone, and that
sting is sin” (p. 119.) Personal appeals are occasionally made that the Lord
could use to bring sinners to repentance by. “Friend, are you ready for that
day? [the second coming of Jesus] Common sense teaches that we are in this
world for a little while, and then comes a long, long eternity” (p. 71.) And
some parts of his prophecy timetable may prove true. “Before the coming of the
Lord the professing Church will fall into worldliness, leave the preaching of
the Gospel to turn to politics, moral reform and the preaching of a bloodless
gospel” (pp. 175, 176.) It is not to suggest that we are imminently close to
the end that I will add: large parts of the professing Church, before the
second coming, will be infatuated with books (like De Haan’s) that
particularize wildly about the end-times.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">When I first read these books, I enjoyed them and
even benefited from them a bit. It had been better for me, in hindsight, to
read books by scholars who major on major doctrines instead of those by
amateurs who dogmatize on minor topics like ‘The Rapture’—‘The
Tribulation’—‘The Antichrist.’ The only reason an old hand like L. Berkhof
touches on these minor things (in his title, <i>The Second Coming of Christ</i>) is to refute what so many are being
falsely taught by men like De Haan under the head of eschatology. True, John
Bunyan wrote a treatise called, <i>Of
Antichrist and his Ruin. </i>But the subject was not a main plank of theology
for him. Sustained focus on topics like the three mentioned above will stunt
your growth. What greater topics may be studied? For starters:
Redemption—Regeneration—Justification. Read <i>The
History of Redemption </i>by Jonathan Edwards<i> </i>or <i>Christ’s Redemption and
Eternal Existence </i>by Thomas Manton, for example. You will discover, then,
that there is too much Significant Truth to learn for you to spend time on
modern ‘end-times’ mania. Mapping cryptic prophecy in minute detail may be fun.
But such work is seldom accurate. And inaccuracies do not lead to
edification. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">M. R. De Haan is far from the worst seed in the
modern crop of ‘prophecy experts.’ But even he, with ease, can be shown for the
careless interpreter that he is. When one gets a sight of the shoddy
performance that his writings exhibit and that I am about to show, one ought,
if one values one’s understanding, to prepare to do a lot of shredding and a
little shopping. I will zone in on three faults in order to discourage books
like this one from being read. (1) Such authors (by which I mean, mainly:
end-times Fundamentalists) tend to be <i>proud,
devious partisans. </i>They have been reared in, or converted to, a shallow
system of thought called Dispensationalism. Because they are so indoctrinated
into thinking they’re right about everything religious, they brashly repeat the
unbiblical hypotheses that they have uncritically received, and they do it,
just like their tutors have done before them, in the face of, and against, the
revelation of plain truth. Will the second coming of Jesus be an event divided
into two appearings? Will there be a secret appearing seven years before the
great and last one, as this radio host contends? “Thus it will be at the coming
of the Lord. Only those who are tuned to Station ‘BLOOD’ will hear that shout”
(p. 30.) Is there a <i>secret</i> ‘shout’
spoken of in Scripture that pertains to the Second Coming? There is not. This
is why De Haan employs odd euphemisms instead of words from Scripture to teach
the idea. Those who will hear the secret shout must be ‘tuned in’ or on the
‘right wave length,’ he says. There is nothing scriptural for him to quote in
order to show that the secret shout is biblical. This is why he speaks like
that. Mr. De Haan seems too embarrassed to paraphrase the whole of 1
Thessalonians 4.16 on page 30. He stops at the word ‘shout.’ The verse
continues: “with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.” Even
when De Haan comes to his heading called ‘The Archangel’ on the next page, he
avoids this verse that he just alluded to and halfway paraphrased! The
archangel shouting is something for De Haan to keep secret in order to convince
heedless persons that the shout is a secret shout. With more of the verse
before us, let’s turn to John’s version of the same event: “Behold, he cometh
with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they which pierced him: and all
kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen” (Revelation
1.7.) The apostles’ verses on the same subject are in perfect harmony.
According to Paul’s verse, every ear will hear (who could be deaf to an
archangel’s voice and God’s own trumpet?) According to John’s verse, every eye
will see (who could remain blind before the glorified Christ revealed?) There
is no <i>secret</i> ‘shout’ going on in 1
Thessalonians 4.16. The verse (in perfect harmony with John’s) is about the
second coming of Jesus Christ that will be seen by all, heard by all, obvious
to all, dreaded by most, and welcomed by some. End-times authors of the
Dispensational stamp tend to be proudly partisan, and misleading besides. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">(2) Such authors tend to be <i>bungling boobies, </i>and <i>sectarians</i>
too<i>. </i>They fall into snares because of
their ignorance. Mr. De Haan wants there to be a literal 1000 years of peace on
earth with Jesus ruling from <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Jerusalem</st1:place></st1:city>.
“A thousand years mean a thousand years; a wolf means a wolf; a lion means a lion”
(p. 83.) So because Isaiah speaks of a lion eating straw, we must take this
literally; and when Revelation speaks of a millennium, we must take that as a
literal 1000 years. That is what he means. Now listen, I am not even taking a
firm side against these two things coming to pass. I don’t think they will. But
it’s not a matter of dogma for me. I want merely to show that end-times authors
make blanket statements that are false, and that, because of this, they should
not be consulted when seeking instruction on the meaning of the Bible,
especially regarding some of the hazier subjects contained in it. Does a lion
always mean a lion in Scripture? The ‘Lion of the tribe of Juda’ (Revelation
5.5), is that a literal lion? The ‘roaring lion’ of 1 Peter 5.8, is that a
literal lion? “Thou shalt tread upon the lion” (Psalm 91.13), does that speak
of a saint treading down a literal lion? These lions are all figurative, not
literal. If the word ‘lion’ is not always meant in a literal sense, De Haan
affirms that “God doesn’t mean what He says” (p. 83.) Anyone taking the word
‘lion’ or ‘thousand’ figuratively is ‘demonizing’ the Scriptures, apparently.
That ‘school of interpretation’ which ‘spiritualizes’ has to do with an ‘evil
spirit.’ This is his angled way of saying you mustn’t be a Christian if you
interpret figuratively. I’m not stretching the truth when I say this. On page
108 he asserts that those who disagree with him on when the Church was founded
‘are still afflicted with <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s
blindness.’ What kind of blindness can he be speaking of here but <i>spiritual</i> blindness? Who is spiritually
blind except unbelievers? What is De Haan doing by using language like this but
inciting hatred between Christian and Christian? What is a sectarian but a
person (De Haan) who divides Christians on account of a disagreement on a
subordinate, non-essential point like when the Church actually began? Men like
De Haan come across so gentle-like and meek—until you stop to consider what
they really imply by their putdowns. Unless you hold to a dispensational model
of interpretation, you are not a Christian. This is what he intimates. Does De
Haan not see the logical deduction of his accusations? If he cannot deduce,
then neither should he teach. Let’s turn now to the figure 1000 and see if it’s
true that, in Scripture, ‘a thousand years mean a thousand years.’ If the
number ‘thousand’ means something figurative sometimes in the Bible, then it is
possible, is it not, that it might be intended figuratively in the largely
figurative Apocalypse? Job 9.3: “If he will contend with him [God], he cannot
answer him one of a thousand”: here a figurative turn including the number 1000
is used to convey the concept ‘never.’ Psalm 50.10: “The cattle on a thousand
hills”: here the number is used figuratively to signify ‘everything.’ Psalm
84.10: “For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand” is a figure of
speech denoting an infinite number of days. Psalm 91.7: “A thousand shall fall
at thy side” is not literal, but symbolic speech for spiritual conquest. Psalm
105.8: “He commanded to a thousand generations” is a figurative way of
stressing the certainty of God’s covenant promises. Ecclesiastes 7.28: “One man
among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found” is
a figurative way of warning men that immoral women abound. Song of Solomon 4.4:
“Thy neck is like a <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">tower</st1:placetype>
of <st1:placename w:st="on">David</st1:placename></st1:place> builded for an
armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers” is a romantic way, a symbolic
way, a figurative way (certainly not a literal way) of praising a woman for the
beauty of her neck. 1 Samuel 18.7: “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David
his ten thousands” means that Saul was less valiant than David was. “For a
thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past” in Psalm 90.4
is a symbolic way of presenting the eternal perspective of God. A ‘thousand’
does not always mean a ‘thousand’ in the Bible. Must a ‘thousand’ mean a
‘thousand’ in the Apocalypse? True, the number thousand is sometimes
approximate or even literal. Example: Isaiah 7.23: “A thousand vines at a
thousand silverlings” may denote a particular sum for a particular number of
objects. But I have shown enough to prove that we should be on our guard
against dogmatism in regard to a literal future 1000 years’ reign with Christ
on earth because the number ‘thousand’ is often used in a figurative way in the
Bible. If ‘thousand’ or ‘thousands’ is meant in a figurative way so many times
in the Bible, then it is possible, and even plausible, that the ‘thousand’
years mentioned in the book of Revelation is to be taken figuratively as well.
To insist, as De Haan does, that a lion always means a literal lion and that
1000 years must mean exactly that, betrays a shameful ignorance of Scripture
and the science of interpreting it. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">(3) Such authors are <i>minor students who major in minor subjects. </i>“First of all, notice
that in every passage of the Word where the Tribulation is mentioned it is with
regard to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></st1:place>”
(p. 46.) Whatever ‘the Tribulation’ may be, whether a past event or a future
event, there is a more important kind of tribulation that is passed over by
prophecy programs and their shallow systems in favor of their cloudy one that
is too often speculated about. Unlike ‘the Tribulation,’ this tribulation is
one that we should be hoping to find ourselves in right now because unless we
are in it, we have cause to doubt the salvation that we profess is ours. “In
the world ye shall have tribulation” (John 16.33.) This is the promise of Jesus
to his saints. This is the tribulation to be inquiring into. Tribulation should
be a visible mark on the life of every Christian. The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">kingdom</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">God</st1:placename></st1:place>
is entered into through tribulation’s door (Acts 14.22.) We should have
‘companion[s]’ in tribulation’ (Revelation 1.9.) What does ‘the Tribulation’
matter if you have no tribulation by which to prove the authenticity of your
profession of faith? Let writers like M. R. De Haan go on, if they are so
ordained, writing books about auxiliary matters that they can never be certain
of. Christian time and studies ought to be better occupied than with turning
over pages and pages of material of dubious merit and pertinence. Do you not
see what perusing the writings of end-times authors leads to? You will learn to
obsess about subsidiary mysteries too. End-times immersion will make a proud
partisan drone out of you. You will learn to interpret like the bungling
boobies who write books like the poor one on my lap right now that deserves a
shredding. And if you become a writer, you’ll be nothing but a factious hack.
Being so stunted, and ignorant of the weightier matters of law and gospel, you
may come to think everything of ‘the Tribulation’ you can never be sure about,
and nothing about a tribulation that you must find yourself engaged in for a
sure entry into God’s everlasting kingdom. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">I read this book six years after my conversion, in
2001. It was my custom back then, and it still is, to put question periods in
the margin to note that I might disagree on some point or other. In a book so
riddled with faults, I am appalled that I can find only four question periods
in this whole book. Too often back then, especially while reading
Fundamentalist books, I did not question enough. I did not question enough
because I had inherited, early on, many biases through my heavy intake of
half-baked theology. Books like this one were almost the only Christian ones
available at the thrift stores and the Christian stores. This is still the
situation today. Dispensationalist writers were helping to grow me in the faith
by what was faithful and true in their writings; but in tandem with that, they
were making a conceited, superficial bigot out of me. I had been crawling out
of this literary ditch by 2001. But it is clear by the many asterisks in the
margins of this book, that I was still believing, at that time, many quirky
dogmas, like the one about giant offspring resulting from the mating of demons
with women (p. 134.) Only by God’s importunate grace did I gradually come into
possession of better material for my mind. For many years now (except to
dissect for critical purposes) I have been tuning out writers like De Haan with
as much resolve as they formerly exercised to tune me in to their deformed,
prejudicial system of eschatology. Now that I have shredded this book <i>figuratively, </i>by which I mean <i>critically, </i>I now proceed to shred it </span><i><span style="font-size: x-large;">literally.</span> </i><span style="font-size: 11pt;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="font-size: large;">Content: C (Fails to do justice to the title.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style: C
(Flat and quaint.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Tone: C
(Affected humility.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading Table: A: a keeper: reread it; promote it;
share it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book:
let it go.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> C: read only if you
have to.</span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-39158927009829598852013-07-05T11:12:00.000-06:002013-07-05T11:12:38.395-06:00ARTHUR W. PINK, THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD (BOOK REPORT 24)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span>GABOURY'S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT</b><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.7pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.7pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
Arthur W. Pink, <i>The Sovereignty of God </i>(1918; <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Grand Rapids</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Michigan</st1:state></st1:place>:
Baker Books, 2009), 269 pp.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg42flGemOYhV2K9NjZx8CGOPgTwbZu0Vqf0p9k6seMf0dDZCL8k_hN4nmMraBKiCBnVUH5DjYwdNlDUH3fokSCktKVd5LeiPhWKOOlU45ypDpLLKJCTq3bcB6eH2eBfNnFkWV3StR_wg3_/s1600/sovereignty+pink.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg42flGemOYhV2K9NjZx8CGOPgTwbZu0Vqf0p9k6seMf0dDZCL8k_hN4nmMraBKiCBnVUH5DjYwdNlDUH3fokSCktKVd5LeiPhWKOOlU45ypDpLLKJCTq3bcB6eH2eBfNnFkWV3StR_wg3_/s1600/sovereignty+pink.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">For the most part, churchgoers
and even preachers preferred ‘light and spicy’ literature to treatises on
doctrine in 1918 (first <i>Foreword</i>) when
<i>The Sovereignty of God </i>was first
published. Now, nearly a century later, doctrine is not just less preferred,
but tailored to taste. One publisher has reissued this treatise in an abridged
form. Those who dismiss this book by referring to it as ‘Hyper-Calvinism’ ‘will
not be worthy of notice,’ says Pink (first <i>Foreword.</i>)<i> </i>But he would certainly take notice, if
he were alive, of a publisher selling an abbreviated edition of his book. Why
was the book shortened? Was it not done to rid the book of what the publisher
thinks are ‘Hyper-Calvinist’ ideas? I had this shortened version once. Too bad
I don’t still have it, for I’d like to see how cut down it really is. Some
other reviewers have a better idea of what the guilty publisher has done. On
behalf of A. W. Pink, I intend to take notice of this publisher by scolding him
for a few lines. And I use the word ‘him,’ not ‘it,’ to identify the guilty
party, for the foul work was done by a person, not just an impersonal
publishing house. Only a <i>full</i> edition
of this treatise should be made available to read. Baker Books is considerate
and courageous to give us that, and self-effacing enough to let us decide for
ourselves whether or not to read a <i>whole </i>book.
To <i>self-efface </i>is more Christian than
to <i>deface </i>your brother’s work.
Defacing an author’s book is exactly what this other publisher has done. I hate
even mentioning that publisher’s brand here because I’ve benefited so greatly
from the books that are sold under its banner. Romans 11.22 insists that we
behold both ‘the goodness <i>and</i>
severity of God’ (p. 230.) Who is at fault, then? The author who would help us
behold the fullness of God? Or a publisher who truncates the fullness of God
that the author has labored to help us behold? Is the severity of God not a
factor for a publisher to behold while he cuts certain parts and aspects out of
an author’s work? A publisher like that ‘knows not what spirit he is of.’ For
certain, he is, while acting thus, ‘as carnal.’ A doctrine that ‘is the centre
of gravity in the system of Christian truth’ (p. 214) deserves a full
exposition and a full hearing or reading. No one has been given the right from
inspired revelation to prevent God from being known as fully as he has
disclosed himself. If a publisher disagrees with how an author has made God
known, or thinks the author has misrepresented God, that publisher should hire
an author to compose anew rather than meddle with a man’s intellectual
property! It may be that the parts that are cut out of said book will cry up to
God from the cutting room floor to draw a curse down on that publisher. To mess
with a man’s work is to violate the man. And when the work that is meddled with
is about the character and will of God, then is God’s name not desecrated in
the violation? Some publishers must have little idea of the momentous
implications of what they so casually do. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Broadly speaking, the doctrine so
carefully exposited by Mr. Pink is “the key to history, the interpreter of
Providence, the warp and woof of Scripture, and the foundation of Christian
theology” (p. 19.) More particularly, sovereignty means that it is God who
determines the destinies of men (p. 20.) It means that God has the right to
deliver or not to deliver, like when he allowed Stephen to be stoned but
rescued Peter (p. 22.) His sovereignty is displayed in announcing the Messiah
to lower class shepherds and to heathen people instead of to the scribes, the
lawyers, and the Sanhedrin (p. 27.) Sovereignty means that God may even work to
carry out his secret decrees through men like Judas (p. 41.) “If then the
arch-rebel was performing the counsel of God is it any greater tax upon our
faith to believe the same of all rebels?” (p. 42.) It is because of the
sovereignty of God that Moses was prevented from entering Canaan for uttering a
hasty word, while the murmuring Elijah suffered only ‘a mild rebuke’ and was
taken up into heaven instead of being allowed to die as other men (p. 45.)
Sovereignty is what limits the atonement to those chosen beforehand to
salvation (p. 61.) Some names have <i>not </i>been
written in the Book of Life (Revelation 13.8); this is proof that sovereignty
has limited the number (p. 99.) To such generalizations and particulars, A. W.
Pink adds periodic summaries of what Scripture teaches concerning election and
reprobation (pp. 58, 100, 104, 125), which decrees fall out from God’s
overarching sovereignty.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Arthur Pink is often tagged as a
Hyper-Calvinist. Is that a fair description of the man? I wouldn’t be so sure.
Does this treatise on sovereignty teach Hyper-Calvinism? Consider the main
marks by which a Hyper-Calvinist may be identified. The first mark of
Hyper-Calvinism is the assertion that the non-elect are not duty-bound, or
responsible, to believe on Christ. No such mark can be found in the chapter
called <i>God’s Sovereignty and Man’s
Responsibility, </i>which is where it would be found if it existed. Though man
lacks ability, yet he is accountable, teaches Pink (p. 154.) An irrevocably
determined destiny relieves no one of responsibility (p. 162.) That sounds like
an orthodox belief in responsibility to me. This chapter is the most poorly
executed part of the book, but not because of any Hyper-Calvinist trend. The
second mark by which Hyper-Calvinism may be identified is what naturally
follows from the first: a curtailed form of evangelism. If certain sinners are
not responsible, why bid them to believe or call them to repentance? Do you see
the progression? But there is no sign of the second mark either. A. W. Pink is
not for preaching to the elect alone. “Others [besides the elect] have the
benefit of an external call” (p. 210.) These are his exact words. That
perverted form of Calvinism which is designated by the prefix ‘hyper’ or
‘ultra’ and which may be identified by this mark cannot be found in this
treatise, not even in the author’s notes on evangelism, which is where the <i>second</i> mark would be found if <i>it</i> existed (pp. 73, 141.) Arthur Pink
believes that moral darkness will increase from his day until the end of the
world (pp. 13, 14), that ‘guilty Christendom’ will be deluded and take part in
it (p. 124), and that God is not seeking to convert the world, but only his
chosen part of it (p. 237.) But none of this (and does it not all ring true?)
is inconsistent with preaching the gospel to all. And none of it is inconsistent
with believing that all sinners are responsible for a faith that they cannot
produce and will never have except it be imparted by grace. But there is one
more mark to inquire about. That God does not love the non-elect in any way,
shape, or form is another Hyper-Calvinist mark. While Pink does clearly state
(in the chapter called <i>Difficulties and
Objections</i>) that God hates the non-elect and loves them not at all, he
admits in chapter one (p. 25) that God is kind to those who are unthankful and
evil, according to Luke 6.35. This kindness may be qualitatively different from
the love that God has for his elect, but it is a kind of love, and therefore
the man should not be accused of Hyper-Calvinism based on this point either.
The mutant form of Calvinism, the perversion of the kind that is true and
Scriptural, just doesn’t exist in this book. (And if not here, in this book on
‘Sovereignty,’ then probably not anywhere in this man’s writings.) The truth
is, an author is usually labeled ‘hyper’ on no surer ground than that he
teaches the doctrines of election and reprobation in all their concentrated
strength. Both of these doctrines appear again and again from Scripture to
Scripture, from one Testament to the Next, and from the Prophets to the
Apostles, as the expositions that precede Pink’s many and useful summaries
soundly prove. What is dismissed or shunned by those who scorn Pink is not
eccentric Hyper-Calvinism, but the flowers of Calvinism that spring up from the
root of Scripture. His tone is abrasive. But that is another matter. Might
Calvinism be rejected by some on account of his tone? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">No matter what its tone, this
treatise on sovereignty will be rejected by any person who is determined to
rest content with his present caricature of God. This obnoxious tone, though,
is a needless, avoidable hindrance. It is impossible to ignore or not be aware
of. I’m surprised that more reviewers don’t mention it. The tone, more than
doctrinal content, is what repels more teachable readers, I think. At least once
the attitude comes across in a funny, inoffensive way, as in the case where he
shows that the lot is disposed, not by chance, but sovereignly. Two
exclamations, not just one, follow upon the proof of <i>that</i> (p. 240.) Usually and regrettably, the attitude is offensive.
From page 96: “Again; did Pharaoh <i>fit
himself </i>for destruction, or did not God harden his heart <i>before </i>the plagues were sent upon <st1:country-region w:st="on">Egypt</st1:country-region>?—see Ex.
4:21!” People are already emotional and touchy about this subject. Teaching in
this manner will not go far toward winning them over. It hurts the cause of
truth more than it helps it. With Pink, the acerbic spirit is more pervasive
than isolated. It can be found with ease, twice just on one page, for example
(p. 104.) The biggest turnoff is when the attitude is found with error, as on
page 176: “<i>We can only ask God for what
Christ would ask. </i>To ask in the name of Christ, is therefore, to <i>set aside </i>our own wills, accepting
God’s!” (all emphasis his.) If we can ask God only for what Christ would ask,
as Pink teaches, then we can never ask God for grace to overcome a sin, can we?
I counted only one tender moment in this entire treatise, on page 49. The one
on page 191 doesn’t count, for what touches us there is the combined influence
of Madam Guyon’s poem and the vignette from her life. (I don’t approve nor
recommend her prayer methods.) It should not be a miserable experience to read
and learn about the wonderful decrees of God and the ultimate hinge of his
inscrutable will. This treatise full of beautiful truth is unpleasant to read.
And I say this even though I agree, in the main, with what the treatise
teaches. I believe in double predestination. I believe that God loves the elect
especially and in a higher sense. I believe that God hated Esau and that Pharaoh
was ordained to damnation to the glory of God’s justice. Why, then, do I take
issue? This book is not part of a debate about truth. Pink assures us of this
when he states, in that first <i>Foreword,</i>
that he is not ‘entering the lists’ with anyone. If the treatise <i>were</i> a debate, the attitude would be
more tolerable. But this is supposed to be an exposition. And if this were<i> </i>a debate, even then there would be
something wrong with the tone. There is just something so bitter about the
communication that it renders the work repugnant. I like hard-hitting books.
But this one has a thorn in its side, and without enough grace to bear it.
There is a ‘root of bitterness springing up’ in it (Hebrews 12.15), and the
work is defiled thereby. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Which begs me to line up some of
Pink’s other faults. (1) I won’t make much of this first point, nor am I saying
that I am right <i>for sure. </i>I put the
point in only because the author I’m critiquing is so sure that <i>he is right.</i> The truth of the matter may
not be as simple as he thinks. He teaches that Christ could have healed the
‘great multitude’ (p. 24) when he healed the man mentioned in John 5.3-9. Can
we be certain of this assertion? We know from other verses that sometimes power
was with Jesus to heal (Luke 5.17) and that sometimes ‘he did not many mighty
works’ (Matthew 13.58.) Focus in on that verse from Luke particularly; it would
be needless to say that power was with him to heal if that was the case <i>always. </i>This fine detail may yield our
answer (in subordination to the fact that Sovereignty from Above had decided
the matter) as to why only one man was ‘made whole’ at the pool where so many
among the disabled were gathered in search of a miracle. Sometimes virtue went
out from Jesus to heal even before he perceived it (Mark 5.30.) Why? Because
Jesus was subject to his Father in heaven. Jesus was divine and had
supernatural power in himself and from on high. I’m not denying any of that.
But the works that he did were those which were given to him by his Father to
do, and no more (John 5.36.) (2) On page 39 Pink speaks of the ferocious
panther and the polar bear at Genesis 6.19, 20, which time was before the
Flood, before animals had become wild, and before the extreme seasons were
introduced. It was after the waters had receded and after the ark had settled
that the seasons began and the beasts became wild (Genesis 8.22, 9.1.) I’m not
making too much of this point either. But why not mention it since those verses
are so suggestive? (3) The mere fact (is it even a fact?) that the word ‘heart’
occurs ‘three times oftener’ in the Bible than does the word ‘will’ furnishes
no further proof that the heart is ‘the dominating center of our being’ (p.
133.) The heart may indeed be the center. But its frequency of mention could
not prove the point any more than that sin, on the strength of being mentioned
more, is greater than grace. This is a juvenile ‘proof.’ I am surprised to
catch a great scholar making use of it. Suppose that the city of <st1:city w:st="on">Toronto</st1:city> were mentioned more than the city of <st1:city w:st="on">Ottawa</st1:city> in a travel magazine about <st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region>. Would
that mean that <st1:city w:st="on">Toronto</st1:city>
is the capital? No, and neither does Pink’s proof hold water. (4) His main
fault is supposing that he’s going to untie ‘the gordian knot of theology’—that
he will harmonize, more than others have been able to do, the Sovereignty of
God and Man’s Responsibility (p. 143, 144), which, unsurprisingly, he sorely
fails to do. The problem to solve is: “If man is incapable of measuring up to
God’s standard, <i>wherein </i>lies his <i>responsibility?” </i>(p. 160.) Nothing new
is discovered, and so nothing new is introduced, for a solution to this
dilemma. In fact, waters are muddied more than they are cleared up. If man were
to ask God <i>sincerely</i> from the heart
for mercy to overcome enmity, then God would respond, Pink tells us (p. 160.)
This solves nothing toward finding wherein lies man’s responsibility; in the
heat of the moment Pink forgets that man cannot ask <i>sincerely</i> from a heart that is <i>spiritually
dead.</i> A heart of stone cannot be sincere toward God. The unregenerate heart
is unable <i>and</i> insincere; man is
responsible to God to repent and believe, not because of an ability to be
sincere, but in spite of a mortal disability that includes the inability to
plead sincerely. In Pink’s own words from page 140: “Alas, what <i>can</i> lifeless<i> </i>man do, and man by nature is ‘<i>dead
</i>in trespasses and sins’ (Eph. 2:1)!” (<i>all</i>
emphasis his, especially the obligatory exclamation mark!) Pink is so sure
(‘too clever by half’) of his ability to probe into a matter that the best
theologians have been unable to fathom that he fails to notice the very
noticeable blemishes that he has let fall into his propositions. The position
of Spurgeon on this knot is better than tripping all over the place for a
solution. An approximation of that position is summarized for us near the top
of page 144: the Scriptures affirm both Sovereignty and Responsibility, two
truths that remain irreconcilable to finite man. It does no good to Pink’s
reputation that he puts forward this failed attempt to untie what the likes of
Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards were unable to unknot. Sovereignty lies behind
all of God’s decrees. Attitude lies behind many of Pink’s faults. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">If the irritation caused by
Pink’s raw attitude can be endured, there is much in this treatise that
churches may be corrected on. That the love of God in Christ is limited in
scope is widely shown to be the case from Scripture (pp. 200-203.) Its
limitation is more than implied in well-known biblical sayings that are
commonly read without attention. Hebrews 12.6: “For whom the Lord loveth he
chasteneth” (p. 202.) What can this imply but that some receive no chastening
love? Many more verses are offered in proof of this uncomfortable fact. But I
give just a taste of how easy the point is to prove. It should be apparent that
a false interpretation of God’s love is dangerous in the extreme when linked up
with inadequate views of depravity and regeneration (pp. 114, 140, 141.) If
God’s love is taken for granted by the depraved sinner who is told that he needs
only to come forward, join a church, and sign a decision card, then his
desperate plight is not conveyed, and the evangelist may get for his lack of
trouble, not a sinner transformed by grace, but a falsely assured sinner on the
road to self-reform, and still on the broad way leading to hell. The sinner
must be told that in the matter of salvation it is not true that God helps
those who help themselves. “God helps those who are <i>unable </i>to help themselves” (p. 218.) Total depravity requires
regeneration for its fix; evangelical reformation <i>follows </i>regeneration, and some natural kind of reformation may be
mistaken for the supernatural, regenerative act. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">But I must return, before I
close, to the subject of the spirit in which this treatise is written. The matter
is so important that it must be the main thing and the last thing left ringing
in the mind of the person who reads this report. I do not doubt, based on the
good content in this treatise and an allusion that is made on page 230, that A.
W. Pink subscribed, at least substantially, to the <i>Westminster Confession of Faith, </i>including the chapter <i>Of God’s Eternal Decree </i>(p. 84) which
was drawn up by the Puritans to whom this author owed so much of his
understanding. In that chapter, directed to ministers especially, if not
exclusively, are these words of warning: “The doctrine of this high mystery of
predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care….” The Puritan
Assembly agreed to include this last clause in the interest of those who ought
to ‘be assured of their eternal election’ through the teaching of this ‘high
mystery.’ Surely this ‘special prudence and care’ must include a spirit
befitting the conveyance of the ‘high mystery.’ Surely a <i>sour </i>spirit is the <i>wrong </i>spirit
to imbue in the work. A sour spirit must be a wicked sister at least, to the
careless and imprudent spirit that the Assembly forbade. A sour spirit is not
fit to handle Imperial Truth, is it? If some Christians are assured of their
eternal election by this treatise, this is good, and I am glad. But the reader
of <i>The Sovereignty of God</i> is apt, I
think, to carry away with him darker notions of God than can be justified from
Scripture. And this unfortunate baggage is due, not to the doctrine of
sovereignty exposited by the author, but to the Uzzah-like hand that reaches
into the work. John Bunyan, in handling the most disagreeable subtext of all
respecting the sovereignty of God: the reprobation of the non-elect, never
betrays an embittered spirit, as firm and steadfast as he is throughout, and
notwithstanding the irritating assaults on the doctrines of grace that might
have flustered the man. His <i>Reprobation
Asserted </i>is a far safer place to turn for lessons on sovereignty than <i>The Sovereignty of God</i>. And what James
White has to say in <i>Debating Calvinism </i>contains
many of the same repairs for false notions of verses connected to sovereignty
that Pink’s treatise does, and they are communicated less offensively, even
though the book containing them is polemical. <i>The Force of Truth </i>by Thomas Scott and <i>Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism </i>by Iain Murray are better depots to
inquire at for the same reasons. <i> </i> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Let’s go on to dissect this rude
tone some more. Let’s get into the very guts of this issue. I counted 194
exclamation marks in this treatise. They appear after each Roman Catholic
anathema is quoted (p. 139.) They frequently appear after Scripture verses are
quoted (pp. 85, 87, 104, 127, 142, etc.) To sum up, you might find one of these
marks virtually anywhere. I would not edit even one of them out, though, out of
respect for what a writer has written. Let’s just take Pink as he presents
himself in his writings. And let the man be subjected to accurate criticism. He
unwittingly invites criticism in one of his vituperative remarks: “True liberty
is not the power to live as we please, but to live as we <i>ought!</i>” (<i>all</i> emphasis
his, p. 149.) Did the author of this admonishment, during the composition of
this treatise, live as he ‘ought’ to have lived? In spite of the ubiquity of
his glaring anger (not just righteous indignation, but biting rage), he would
have readers believe that he is not ‘entering the lists’ with anyone. He is <i>totally </i>entering the lists here; he
enters the arena of combat from the get-go and he stays in it the whole way
through! In case I have not sufficiently communicated the offensiveness of
Pink’s tone earlier, take a look at this from page 255: “The vessels of wrath
He endures ‘with much long-suffering’ (see Rom. 9:22). But ‘His own’ God
‘loves’!!” (all emphasis his.) Now take a look at a passage on the same subject
by R. M. M’Cheyne: “Ah, brethren! I believe each of you will yet be a beacon or
a monument—either a beacon of wrath or a monument of mercy” (<i>Sermons, </i>p. 186.) Do you feel the
difference between these two passages? The first one (Pink’s) communicates no
love, though the word ‘love’ is used with emphasis. The second one (M’Cheyne’s)
communicates love even while warning sinners. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">And now I am going to qualify the
statement I made earlier about Pink not being a Hyper-Calvinist. Technically,
he may be innocent of the charge, for he admits that God is kind to unthankful,
evil persons, which is an admission that God has a sort of love for the
non-elect. But he admits this divine kindness in such a grudging spirit, and so
lightly and infrequently (probably just once) that I would not begrudge anyone
calling the man a Hyper-Calvinist <i>practically
in this one book. </i>On the subject of God’s love, A. W. Pink is not as well
read as he thinks he is, and not as much in the tradition of his theological
heroes as he asserts. He says the following on page 200: “That God loves
everybody, is, we may say, quite a <i>modern
</i>belief. The writings of the church-fathers, the Reformers or the Puritans
will (we believe) be searched in vain for any such concept.” It did not take me
more than the turning of a few pages in just one book to prove Pink wrong: “God
hath universal love, and particular love; general love, and distinguishing
love; and so accordingly doth decree, purpose, and determine: from general
love, the extension of general grace and mercy: but from that love that is
distinguishing, peculiar grace and mercy” (<i>The
Works of John Bunyan, Volume 2, Reprobation Asserted, </i>p. 340.) Bunyan goes
on to explain that it was because of God’s universal, or general love, that
Ishmael, the rejected son of Abraham, was blessed. That God loved Isaac ‘with a
better love’ is obvious, for he was chosen by God over against his
half-brother. That Ishmael was blessed by God no one can deny, though, for the
thing is written in Scripture. And what do we call a divine blessing but an
exhibition of God’s love? Bunyan is no obscure Puritan, but the best-known
Puritan of all. His belief that God loves everyone is no ‘modern’ belief, for
he lived in the 17<sup>th</sup> century, which century is closer to the
medieval age than it is to Pink’s. Pink quotes Bunyan’s treatise on reprobation
approvingly on pages 106, 107. How closely did Pink study this brilliant
treatment of eternal election? He had done well not only to study it, but to
imitate its appropriate tone. How strange that Pink could write a chapter
called <i>Our Attitude Toward God’s
Sovereignty </i>and at the same time be so blind to his own hyper-frequent
attitude abuses! </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">If it seems too extreme to label <i>The Sovereignty of God </i>Hyper-Calvinistic
even practically speaking, then can it not be said without slander that the
book is hyper in <i>some</i> fashion? If it
is not hyper based on its position on God’s love, can we not say that it is
hyper based on its hateful tone? It is hyper, or excessive, in the stridency of
its tone. There is nothing more conspicuous than this in the whole book. The
tone of the book is the book’s signature, if there is one. Thousands of persons
must have read the treatise since its first publication; would even one honest
person among them dare to say that its tone is not bleak and curt, even
consistently so? This nasty excess is distasteful, shameful, and intolerable. <i>The Picture of Dorian Gray </i>is the most
depressing novel that I have ever read. <i>The
Sovereignty of God </i>is the most depressing orthodox theology that I have
ever had the displeasure of reading. How lovely that these two depressing books
just happen to sit together on the shelf in a dark corner behind my shoulder!
A. W. Pink is not a necessary man to turn to for learning your Bible doctrines.
Any Puritan of note (and there are many to choose from) will teach you more,
will teach you better, and will do you more good. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">An air of unsociability blows
through this treatise. And it makes for a sad reflection when you think of how
much readier the same message might be received through kinder communication.
To read the Puritans and to emulate their content is commendable. But to be as
approachable as they were, one must copy their character. The flowers of
Calvinism should never look and smell (as they do here on account of gruffness
added to gravity) like Beaudelere’s <i>Fleurs
du Mal. </i>To be specific, the mood of Pink’s treatise on sovereignty is like
the feeling conveyed by this couplet from Beaudelere’s poem, <i>Owls</i>: “And darkness settles
everywhere;/The last sad rays of daylight die.” That might seem like severe
criticism. And I suppose that it is. But this book had that impression on me.
The cause of this negative effect is the tone, the voice, or the expression,
which I have been careful both to show and to explicate. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Too many readers smear A. W. Pink
because they misunderstand Calvinism, its implications and deductions, and
Christianity generally. From the other extreme, he is read uncritically; some even
follow him cult-like. Balanced criticism of this author’s writings, and of this
book most particularly, is extremely lacking. From what I have read of him, he
is most times a great expositor. <i>The
Sovereignty of God </i>is his most controversial book. If I ever review other
books of his that I have read (which is unlikely), I can guarantee less
negativity in my criticism.</span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Content: A- (A sacred
subject seriously studied.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style: A- (Direct communication.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Tone: C
(Constancy that slips into sourness.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading Table: A: a keeper:
reread it; promote it; share it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book:
let it go.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> C: read only if you
have to.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-13672373548277811372013-05-28T15:37:00.000-06:002013-05-28T15:37:42.292-06:00UNITY BAPTIST CHURCH, TRUSTING WHILE TRYING (SERMON ANALYSIS 1)<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<span style="font-size: large;">November 2011<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">This is our first look
at Unity Baptist. We listened by podcast. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. McLaren, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Unity</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Baptist</st1:placename>
<st1:placetype w:st="on">Church</st1:placetype></st1:place>, August 21<sup>st</sup>,
2011, </span></b><i><b><span style="font-size: large;">Trusting while Trying.</span></b><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<div class="MsoTitle" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Summary:</i> (The preliminary remarks
concern an upcoming festival that this church is either involved in or
responsible for.) If this is going to work, there must be trying and trusting.
The image for the sermon is the trapeze artist. One is a flyer; the other is a
catcher. The flyer must try really hard to get the right momentum and timing,
but he must put his arms up, close his eyes, and trust the catcher to catch
him. If the flyer tries to catch the catcher, it never works. You have to try
and trust. You have done all you can do with a test or buying a house; then you
have to trust. God is the only one who can bring it to pass. Psalm 20 gives us
an example of trying and trusting. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region> would have made a plan
before going to war. But Psalm 20 was
read just before their armies went out to battle. Rather than pull their troops
together for a motivational talk, <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region> would go to church. When <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region> went out trusting in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">God</st1:city>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Israel</st1:country-region></st1:place>
always won. This is a good Psalm when we’re planning to do a festival or
something like that. (The Psalm is read in responsive reading fashion.) Verse 6
is pretty powerful. ‘Save’ is in the perfect tense, as if it’s already
completed. ‘Now I know that the Lord will save’: future tense, but already
accomplished. Now I want to share two observations. (A): the name of the game.
The name of God is the name of the game. His name brackets the Psalm. Verse 1:
‘May the God of Jacob protect you.’ Then verse 7: ‘We trust in the name of the
LORD.’ Why do we bless a name? The name is Jehovah: I am that I am, or I will
be what I will be. When we trust in his name, we trust in his character, his
commitment to us, and remember his promises kept in the past. We trust in him
to be powerful, loving, and just. Also, his name means to accept that he is
sovereign, that he is God and we are not. It means that we do not try to
manipulate him. We trust in more than our perceptions. We accept whatever he
chooses to do. So we pray in Jesus’ name, for the baby we want, for the job,
for that healing, or for the mission. We trust in him, in his character, as if
it’s already done. (B): the heart of the matter. Verse 4: ‘May he give you the
desire of your heart, and may all your plans succeed.’ Would it not be
terrifying if that actually came true? What would follow is frustration, chaos,
and anger. When we pray, we want our heart’s desire to come true. But we must
acknowledge that we don’t always know what is best. Verse 3 does not mean that
after you have given your offerings, God is obligated to give you the desires
of your heart. What it is saying is that when you’ve recognized that God is
God, and made your heart right with him, then you are in God’s will, and he’ll
want to bless you. May he give you ‘according’ to your heart. So according to
the ‘nature of your heart.’ Are you right with him? Are you obeying him?
Whatever we do, we need to try our best and ultimately trust God. We pray that
God would answer our prayers according to his name, based on his character and
promises. And we can say, ‘Lord, may it be done according to our hearts.’ (He
finishes with a brief prayer.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Remarks:</i> Mr. McLaren is easy to listen
to. The sermon is delivered with sincerity. An outline is followed. Some actual
teaching takes place. The sovereignty of God is acknowledged as the overarching
factor to be kept in mind while petitioning. The word, in its particular parts,
at least, is not irreverently treated when touched upon. And though a movie is
mentioned, this is not done in levity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Typically, a <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Red
Deer</st1:place></st1:city> sermon deserves more censure than praise. This
one is typical, though it is far from the worst one that we’ve heard. We’ll drop
our censorious remarks under the following heads: What is taught? And then: How
does the superficial teaching come about?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">What is taught? Not much is taught. And so the
analysis should be one of our shortest. Psalm 20 is used by this pastor to prop
up his pep talk. The pep talk is for the purpose of stimulating the
congregation to do well at the upcoming festival. A cursory reading of Psalm 20
yields a theme of trusting God, not while trying, like the pastor says, but in
time of trouble. The ‘trying’ focus comes in because the pastor would pump his
people up for the festival. Trusting in God’s name is to trust in his
attributes to perform his promises. The pastor lays that down okay. But when he
comes to what he calls ‘the heart of the matter’ (by which he means the
granting of our petitions), the subject rises no higher than our earthly wants:
the job, the baby, the passed test. Psalm 20 is a prayer in prospect of
warfare. Should the obvious application not be, then, our prayer in prospect of
spiritual warfare? And what are the eminent petitions to be won against our
enemy? Is it not holiness to overcome flesh and sin? Is it not modesty and
peace in the face of an extravagant, violent world? Is it not steadfast faith
and the whole armor of God to ricochet all the tempting darts of Satan? It is
by petitioning for these greater, more important things that we come most
unselfishly to Jesus Christ, by whose life, death, and resurrection the
Christian’s victory is assured against our greatest foes. Serious Commentaries
can see Jesus in this Psalm somewhere; this sermon does not. Serious
Commentaries do not apply this Psalm to petitions for earthly desires; this
sermon does. What helps us to trust God for the right job or a future baby?
Being told to trust him for these things? No, there is a better, more spiritual
way. We are better helped when Jesus’ victory is preached to us, through which
all things, by faith, are possible. It is by having our eyes elevated above our
earthly petitions that we come up to accept, without repining, the outcome
whatever it be. The sovereignty of God over our petitions is the proviso we
praise the sermon for including. But because the petitions preached on by the
pastor are limited to things that will pass away instead of things that carry
into <i>eternity</i>, like holiness and
love, he who is the same yesterday, today, and <i>forever</i> is not given a place of prominence in this sermon. This
sermon is not devilish, but it is somewhat earthly. (See James 3.15.) And
because the listeners are urged to participate in this festival in order to
have fun and be ‘relational’ with the community, we have reason to assert that
it is a little sensual as well. ‘Relating’ to our neighbors usually comes down
to participating in small talk about sports and movies, the result of which is
a show to the world that Christians are not a different species at all, when,
in fact, in the Bible they are called a holy, royal priesthood and other
similar, distinguishing names. If this festival was your typical Christian outreach
effort, then we know that we’re not exaggerating our pessimism. The current
belief is to get your witness in by showing the world that you are no different
and no better. The biblical witness, in contrast, will assert and demonstrate
that there is a difference. There is a difference of hobbies and habits,
lifestyles and interests. Once we were no different, “when we were in the
flesh, the motions of sins…did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto
death” (Romans 7.5.) And “now we are delivered from the law…that we should
serve in newness of spirit” (verse 6.) Did conversations at the festival get to
this uncomfortable level of explicating the dichotomy between the unregenerate
and the Christian? If not, then this sermon proved a failure. But maybe the
festival was meant just as a means of building bridges, nothing more. Many
Christians speak hopefully and affectionately of building bridges. But have any
of these festival bridges been crossed, we wonder? The content of Romans 7
would be an uneasy and perhaps dishonest dialogue for the Christian to engage
in with the worldling if the motions of sin are indeed still operating in that
Christian through the television set and the local theater. How can a Christian
appear sincere in his testimony if the motions of sin he should have left
behind are his point of contact with the one he is supposedly witnessing to?
Maybe the Christian is not giving his assent to the sins and lifestyles that he
watches on the screen. That will be his argument. But the watching world does
not translate his participation like that. The watching world knows that the
Christian watches sin for entertainment, that he watches because he likes it,
and that this watching is de facto assent to what he’s looking at. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">How does the superficial teaching come about? It
seems clear that the pastor began with an idea for a sermon in support of his
festival venture. He wants his congregation to trust while they try in order to
the desired result at this festival. Hence his title, ‘Trusting while Trying.’
A sermon is bound to fall apart when we begin with self instead of Scripture.
Psalm 20 is not foundational here, but the festival. The Psalm is tacked on as
a desperate resort to hold up an idea, an idea that the Psalm is not intended
to support. The sermon begins with remarks on a festival, which remarks are
then shod with wheels from a carnival illustration, and then the whole idea is
supposed to roll when Psalm 20 is plugged into it for generation. This is to
treat Scripture very terribly, as the power we want to drive our circus car
with. It should remind us of the carnal use of God’s ark, for which the
children of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region>
were punished. The first point in the sermon is called ‘the name of the game.’
Why? Because of the trapeze artist, of course, not because of what’s in the
Psalm. The trapeze artist hangs way up in the sermon where Psalm 20 belongs.
He, not the Psalm, is relied on to carry the first point. Psalm 20 is just the
trapping brought in to help catch the trapeze artist and the festival. It is
not the main thing. Is something wrong when the Scripture text is forced down
to an inferior place and made nothing but the pep for a people on their way to
a festival? This Psalm is about trusting God in our warfare. It should not be made
the handmaiden of our little enterprise. It is there to speak out truth to us,
not for us to speak ideas into it. ‘The name of the game’—how does that follow
from ‘trusting and trying?’ It does not. How does ‘the heart of the matter’
follow, either from the first point, ‘the name of the game,’ or from ‘trusting
while trying,’ which is the title? There is no harmony in any of this. The
points do not follow the title; the second point does not follow from the first
point. The sermon is a weak fabrication, with a Psalm gratuitously thrown in to
give some pep to people the pastor suspects might slouch. The title, the
points, and the Psalm, are like disconnected cars designed to pull this
festival along. It doesn’t work. It can’t work, for the sacred engine, the
Psalm, is not in front and not hooked up to the rest. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Conclusion: </i>When the pastor alludes to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region> using
Psalm 20 in their worship before going to war, he emphasizes this good practice
of theirs by contrasting it with what they did not do: pull the troops together
for a motivational talk. That’s very interesting, for instead of preaching the
Psalm as a text of worship for holy warfare, the pastor makes it serve his
motivational speech for the festival affair! The truth of how to properly
handle this text is right in the research he did, and yet he goes on to do the
very thing that he says <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Israel</st1:place></st1:country-region>
knew better than to rely on! This treatment of Psalm 20 is textual malpractice.
When it becomes understood how reverently the content of God’s word is supposed
to be touched, handled, and delivered, the inevitable question that gets begged
from this pastor’s treatment of the sacred word is his calling. To question a
ministerial calling (just to raise the inkling of a doubt about it!) is
unacceptable these days. But if you do not doubt a man’s calling who handles
the word of God in this way, then there is something wrong, not only with him,
but with you too. The question should naturally pose itself to your mind <i>if </i>or <i>once</i> you realize that the text of God’s word is not being allowed
to teach, but instead made to serve as an addendum in support of a pastor’s pet
project. The question that should drift through your mind when you see this
done (if you have eyes, the mental vision, to see it) is this: Does God call men
to fill pulpits who treat his word in this way? Is that a shepherd who coaxes
his sheep to jump a fence to who knows where when he should be occupied in
feeding them? We’re not saying the man is not called to minister. We say that
his treatment of the word naturally raises a doubt in the mind of an attentive
listener. It’s not something that can be helped. And it’s not something that
has to be kept secret. If all pastors were made to consider their callings once
in awhile, sermons would be better, and better results would surely follow. It
is no surprise that from treating the word of God in his pragmatic manner, no
conviction of anything is brought to our heart by the address. This talk is
thin, but it’s not sharp like the word that slices through joints and marrow.
It is because the idea of man is wielded here, not the substance of the word.
If the word were wielded, sin and guilt would fly out from the cut, and the
people would be made to feel, react, and repair to Jesus Christ for salvation
or consolation. This sermon carries no disturbance to anyone; and therefore
little comfort will be sought on account of it. It is a routine, terrestrial
performance that, unless renovated to its core, no amount of trusting and
trying can fix. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Mr. McLaren, because we have had no occasion to
communicate with you, let the following copy of our analysis be our first
encounter. Maybe you have sometimes wondered what that would look like if some
persons took one of your sermons, without partisan favor influencing their
effort, and subjected it to Scripture scrutiny. This analysis can be much more
useful to you than the pats on the back that you receive on Sunday, if you take
it to heart in prayer. If you would like to talk about our findings, or if you
would like to receive our upcoming second analysis of your work, we welcome you
to contact us. If you choose to ignore us, we will not hound you. At some
future date, the analyses of your sermons, God permitting, will be featured on
our blogsite. In the meantime, you may scour this blog to read similar analyses
of sermons preached by many of your colleagues. We have been so pleased to find
ourselves reaping the increase of spiritual discernment through the obedience
of such texts as 1 John 4.1 and 1 Thessalonians 5.21! We should not be
surprised that obedience yields at least a little insight. Praise God with us,
for this idea that dropped down from heaven, to do this Bible-Based
Sermon-Group! May the scrutiny of your own sermons, and that of your colleagues
too, yield the same blessings to your soul! Things can get better when we face
our faults full on and endeavor to improve, even though the passage to success
may be hurtful, hard, and grim. We believe in the reverent treatment of God’s
holy word!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Blessings,
M. H. Gaboury.</span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-7452403227979676402013-05-28T15:23:00.000-06:002013-05-28T15:23:14.606-06:00PRESUMPTUOUS SINS (SERMON SKETCH 12)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent
blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction
from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch
will be indicated at the bottom of each post.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Presumptuous Sins</span></b><br />
<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<span style="text-align: center;"><b>“Keep back thy servant
also from presumptuous sins” (Psalm 19.13.)</b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction. </i>All sins are great sins. But it is wrong to suppose
that because all sins will condemn us, that therefore one sin is not greater
than another. Now the presumptuous sins of our text are just the chief of all
sins. It is remarkable, that though an atonement was provided under the Jewish
law for every kind of sin, there was this one exception: “But the soul that
sinneth presumptuously shall have no atonement.” Now, under the Christian age,
in the sacrifice of our blessed Lord, there is a great and precious atonement
for presumptuous sins. Yet, presumptuous sinners, dying without pardon, must
expect to receive a double portion of the wrath of God. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) What is a Presumptuous Sin? </i>First, when a man knows better, and
sins anyway, that is presumptuous sinning. That is so, even if conscience be
the only light he sins in spite of. But, O! how presumptuous to sin in spite of
<i>greater </i>light! What if a mother with
tearful eye has warned me first? Or a father with a steady look? And what of
friends and religious education? And if you have heard of a sudden death, or
have been very sick, then you have sinned against the voice of God, broken
promises, and sinned presumptuously. Second, a man may sin in a moment of hot
haste; but a <i>deliberate </i>sin, a <i>planned </i>sin, is a sin of high
presumption. And so is any sin that is deliberately done <i>habitually. </i>Third, the sin I speak of is like the one by the man in
Numbers who <i>designed</i> to gather sticks
on the Sabbath, just to show his disrespect for God’s command. Many of you sin just like this
today. It is a master-piece of wickedness. There are few that repent of it.
Fourth, daring to think we are strong enough to go so far into sin and no
farther, like when one goes into a casino—there is a kind of suicide in a sin
like that. Or maybe you say, “In a little time I will get serious for
religion.” You <i>presume </i>to live until
that time? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) Why is the Presumptuous Sin so Enormous? </i>Simply because it is a sin
against knowing better. It is the difference between <i>unknowingly</i> being involved in a bad thing, and <i>fighting for </i>the bad cause—or between stealing out of hunger, and
stealing to mock the law—or between insulting a man carelessly, and setting out
carefully to insult him. O! you that have sinned presumptuously—and who among
us has not done so?—bow your heads in silence, confess your guilt, and then
open your mouths, and cry, “Lord have mercy upon me, a presumptuous sinner.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(3) The Appropriateness of this Prayer. </i>“Keep back thy servant also
from presumptuous sins.” Did David, the “man after God’s own heart” need to
pray that? Yes, “Curb thy servant with thine overpowering grace.” The best of
men may sin presumptuously. The highest saints may sin the lowest sins, unless
kept by divine grace. You old experienced Christians, do not boast, you may
trip yet, unless you pray the prayer. Hazael recoiled in horror at the prophecy
that he would slay his master. But what did he do? The very next day he went
and choked him to death! Think it not enough to hate sin, you may yet fall into
it! Job might have said, “I will never curse the day of my birth.” But he lived
to do it. If the best need this prayer, what about us?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection from Conclusion. </i>“God’s Spirit has found some of you out…
I thought when I was describing presumptuous sin that I saw here and there an
eye that was suffused with tears…here and there a head that was bowed down…You
have greatly sinned, and if God should blast you into perdition now, he would
be just…Go home and confess…with cries and sighs…remember…a man who was a God.
That man suffered for presumptuous sin.” </span><i> </i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched
by M. H. Gaboury.}</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFh0-rMQW0iFRssx7n8izqz214VAkQj8FdUFWaA4SeinYo2Euq69y-5E0U7kZjW9f5BOVpMsPfJ7W8kSTqABmYTZf0Ttnxld42ti7pGyddtxZ0-juh4naDVtEmLUb18jW0TlpX2UbtbSMv/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFh0-rMQW0iFRssx7n8izqz214VAkQj8FdUFWaA4SeinYo2Euq69y-5E0U7kZjW9f5BOVpMsPfJ7W8kSTqABmYTZf0Ttnxld42ti7pGyddtxZ0-juh4naDVtEmLUb18jW0TlpX2UbtbSMv/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-36062023445614148932013-05-16T11:08:00.000-06:002013-05-16T11:08:54.570-06:00MARTYN LLOYD-JONES, SETTING OUR AFFECTIONS UPON GLORY (BOOK REPORT 23)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b>GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 12.0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Martyn Lloyd-Jones, <i>Setting our Affections upon Glory</i> (<st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Wheaton</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Illinois</st1:state></st1:place>:
Crossway, 2013), 173 pp.<br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisvwg9Nv1iX6cyGJMNF2C2oPtxGPojV4ismprFxcUB1ePmxGzgGgRF16UteyqQ_5Lc_ytffagHBCTe8m5B84JXLOimWGiTjRYVzL1KOQS8lwKEVzPbOS_2RMLxnyyAk4CEWzFhepGXFC1M/s1600/setting+our+affections+upon+glory.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisvwg9Nv1iX6cyGJMNF2C2oPtxGPojV4ismprFxcUB1ePmxGzgGgRF16UteyqQ_5Lc_ytffagHBCTe8m5B84JXLOimWGiTjRYVzL1KOQS8lwKEVzPbOS_2RMLxnyyAk4CEWzFhepGXFC1M/s1600/setting+our+affections+upon+glory.jpg" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Up until 2013, these sermons from
1969 were not available except to those who had bought recordings of them in
the day. Thanks to John Schultz, they are now available to all. In the first
sermon, Lloyd-Jones maintains that the acid test of a Christian’s profession of
faith is how he faces imminent death or reacts to tragedy. He preached that
sermon in <st1:city w:st="on">Pensacola</st1:city>
while Hurricane Camille was threatening. The hurricane leaned west and landed
in <st1:state w:st="on">Mississippi</st1:state>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">These sermons are textual rather
than expository. This was not Lloyd-Jones’ usual practice. Maybe it is on
account of this uncharacteristic method that more quotes and anecdotes occur in
these sermons than usually. To be refreshed so often by these helps is a
pleasant surprise. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">All of the sermons in this series
deserve to be published. Five out of the nine are as good as anything else that
I’ve read from this great Bible teacher. In <i>The
Acid Test, </i>we are bade to consider what ‘the test of tests’ may be of our
Christian profession. Orthodoxy is necessary, but one might be orthodox and yet
spiritually dead. Morality is essential, but many men and women who are not
Christians are highly moral. Experience is essential, but many cultists have
great experiences too. “How do you feel when you are face-to-face with the
ultimate, the end” (p. 16.) This is the acid test. If you have not faced death
or never had to deal with great loss, you do not know if you’d pass the acid
test. But you can test yourself like so: “Do you want more entertainment and
less preaching?” (p. 59.) Assuming that your pastor is really preaching:
whether you desire further instruction or not about ‘the message of the cross’
(p. 60) may be a useful sign. In <i>What is
the Church? </i>Lloyd-Jones is more fiery than anywhere else that I’ve
encountered him. This modern travesty of uniting in fellowship without first
agreeing doctrinally really irked the man because the resulting ‘carnal
fellowship’ (p. 56) destroys ‘the life and well-being of the church’ (p. 57.)
In this sermon, the creeds are easily proven necessary, and the ecumenical push
is forcefully pushed back. The pillars of Christian doctrine are not vague and
indefinite (p. 61.) The need of doctrine is a prominent proposition in this
man’s writings. “You cannot get away from doctrine. If you do not know the
truth about the Lord, you are not a Christian, my friend” (p. 118.) In <i>Evangelism: a very Modern Problem, </i>he
deals with modern innovations one after the other and shows how unbiblical they
are. For instance, the modern argument is that if we put the Bible into simple
non-theological language, the message will be believed. “Well, they did not
understand the terms in Thessalonica either” (p. 108.) But many there became
such followers that the word spread out from them far and wide through very
difficult terrain, like wildfire (pp. 108-111.) In the next sermon, Lloyd-Jones
shows, from the life of Moses, what the steps to revival are. <i>Highway to Revival </i>is useful, not only
for showing this, but for proving how accurate the Mosaic account must be,
since all revivals subsequent to this one in Exodus evince the same pattern:
people stand in the gap to intercede, they separate themselves in some way from
the rest of the assembly, they insist on the presence of God (even after
angelic assistance is promised), and they don’t even stop at that, but push on
for a personal taste of God’s glory. This sermon is the most encouraging of the
nine. It contains a good summary of revival history too. And there is a
conspicuous detail that emerges from the account of Moses being blessed with a
show of God’s glory: Before God gives it, he asserts his will respecting
sovereignty and election. That is very interesting in light of the present
feeble state of our churches, for these doctrines, maybe more than any others,
are neglected or even hated by pastors and churchgoers generally. <i>The <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Narrow Way</st1:address></st1:street>, </i>the last sermon out of
the best five, is profound preaching on the necessity of narrowness, on the
glory of it, and on the glory it leads to. If you are ashamed of being called
narrow-minded, consider that the narrowness that you are so ashamed of is what
Jesus Christ “exults in and puts on the flag of his kingdom: the ‘strait gate,’
‘the narrow way’” (p. 148.) Lloyd-Jones uses, to good effect, a fable from
Aesop to demonstrate the peril of being broadminded (p. 146.) But the greatest
part of the sermon, the most helpful part, and the greatest part of this great
book, is when he takes us point by point, from the birth in Bethlehem to all
the further narrowing that led to the narrow way on the cross. Narrowing leads
to death and glory. The broad way leads to destruction. It is best to be narrow
like the Master. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">There is almost nothing to fault
in these sermons. Higher Criticism did not begin in the 1930’s (p. 80), but in
the late 1700’s. If that’s about all one can find fault with, then has the
preacher not proven himself worthy? Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a great worthy in an
age when worthies were singularly scarce. No writings from the latter half of
the 20<sup>th</sup> century deserve to be read more than his. This man was the
best in his field in his day. And what field of study is more important than
the knowledge of God applied to the problems that modernity is throwing our
way? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">How relevant is Lloyd-Jones’
material from the 1960’s? Just consider the national or international days of
prayer that people get all worked up about as if those efforts will do any
good. Consider those events in light of the disparity of belief among the
supplicants who participate. You cannot really pray “without the doctrines of
the incarnation, the life of perfect obedience, the atoning substitution, the
sacrificial death, the literal resurrection, the ascension, the heavenly
session” (p. 169.) What good is unbiblical unity then? What good is ecumenical
prayer then? What good is interfaith worship? Unity at the expense of doctrine
is a partnership that God will never respond to favorably. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Christian faith is supposed
to look down upon the world from which a ‘whole view of life’ may be observed
(p. 23.) That is what these sermons do. They give us a bird’s eye view of ‘the
petty problems of life’ that shouldn’t be allowed to conquer. How do great
afflictions work in your favor? “They drive you to this glory” (p. 26.) I have
read about a dozen volumes of Martyn Lloyd-Jones’ writings. Not one of those volumes
is less than excellent. But <i>Setting our
Affections upon Glory</i> has more help in it for bewildered Christians than
any of these others. The title,<i> </i>whether
chosen by the author or the editor, is the perfect moniker for these nine
sermons, for the setting of our affections upon glory is the main remedy
prescribed by the doctor ‘when sorrows like sea billows roll’ (Mr. Spafford, p.
21.) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Content: A (Essential sermons for
confused Christians.) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style:
A (Fully developed propositions easily understood.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">
Tone: A (The voice of one who
knows his subject intimately.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading Table: A: a keeper:
reread it; promote it; share it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book: let it go.</span></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"> C: read only if you have to.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span>The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-26828015350393261042013-05-13T13:18:00.000-06:002013-05-13T13:18:24.101-06:00SARAH J. RICHARDSON, LIFE IN THE GREY NUNNERY AT MONTREAL (BOOK REPORT 22)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b>GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sarah J. Richardson, <i>Life in the Grey Nunnery at Montreal, </i>ed. Edward P. Hood (1857;
LibriVox recording, read by Brendan Stallard, 2011.)</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6HM6lNy61eZLiCxSTh1pri4TSYucXk1b0nHp3HWM2ksLizkiOQz76loWrvFwFeM0g-gqgmdAGzOqkuGG_IgFK_l10SPbkyC7NXiRtJct8G1dtkDjCugEgSGau1Gjbb56FPDjo-pw96qUv/s1600/grey+nunnery.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6HM6lNy61eZLiCxSTh1pri4TSYucXk1b0nHp3HWM2ksLizkiOQz76loWrvFwFeM0g-gqgmdAGzOqkuGG_IgFK_l10SPbkyC7NXiRtJct8G1dtkDjCugEgSGau1Gjbb56FPDjo-pw96qUv/s400/grey+nunnery.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This story began to surface
when an escaped nun attempted to explain to her Protestant hosts the reason for
her constant nervousness. At the behest of these persons that she told the
story of her sufferings to, this former nun dictated the account here told, and
it was published in 1857. Only after she married would the Subject of this
narrative consent to share the story at large, so much did she fear her
‘relentless persecutors’: the Roman Catholic priests. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">In <st1:city w:st="on">Montreal</st1:city> during this period, “no one can
assist a runaway nun with impunity if caught in the act.” Only on her third
attempt did this nun, after fifteen years or so of confinement, privations,
abuse, and torture, make a lasting escape. Sarah J. Richardson (her married
name) was never a nun by choice. She was made one by force. The priests who
bought her named her Sister Agnes. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">This woman’s story unfolds like
so. Wanting to give his six year old girl a better life, an ignorant, drunkard
father puts her in the ‘care’ of priests in return for $100.00. Thus, at that
tender age does the girl’s ‘history of punishments’ begin. At the White
Nunnery, little girls are very strictly treated. As the captive soon found out,
forgetting to close a door softly enough can get you a cat-of-nine-tails upon
the head and shoulders. The girls are never permitted to speak to one another,
may not turn in their beds during the nite, and get fifteen minutes of
recreation per day. The terrors they are subjected to cause some of them to
have fits and to become sick, which their scanty diet helps to remedy but
little. They are not permitted to receive visitors, have to fast every third
day, and are made to endure ‘nothing but toil and self-denial.’ Believing as
they are told, that the priests know all their thoughts, they quickly learn to
confess, obey, and fear. “Can the world of woe itself furnish deceit of a
darker dye?” </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">At age ten, the Subject is sent
to the Grey Nunnery at <st1:city w:st="on">Montreal</st1:city>,
which is the place, or prison, most of the narrative is occupied to describe.
Once at this nunnery, she is brought into a room where a coffin is waiting. The
presence of the coffin seems to signify that the priests will now kill her, a
thought that makes her feel that she might die of fear before they do it. It
turns out that she is made to lie down in that coffin during a ceremony meant
to illustrate her death to the world. Imagine being in that coffin, reader, at
the age of ten with Roman priests muttering over you in the Latin tongue.
Sounds like a scene from <i>The Exorcist </i>or
something. In this nunnery, the girls must do hard labor, with but little food
for support and strength, all the while fearing the priests as much as they
fear the devil himself. And no wonder. After spilling a little water, for example,
the Subject is locked in a scary room for twenty-four hours in a standing
posture, notwithstanding her confession of sorrow. From this grim vantage
point, she can hear the shrieking of others because of their own punishments,
and some of them praying for death instead of life. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">In the context of her first,
arduous escape into the world, the Subject asks, “Is it strange that I felt
that life was hardly worth preserving?” When she is betrayed into the hands of
the priests, she questions ‘the justice of the Power that rules the world.’
Then she sinks even lower, and begins to doubt the existence of that Power.
“Why were my prayers and tears disregarded?” she moans. “What have I done to
deserve a life of misery?” she asks. Upon her return, she is told to choose one
punishment out of the following three: consignment to the ‘fasting room’ where
decomposing corpses are; consignment to the ‘lime room’ with its noxious vapors
and bottomless pit; or consignment to the ‘cell’ where devices of terror and
torture-traps are kept. She ends up in the third room. Once locked in there to
consider what her fate might be, in comes a priest masquerading as the devil in
order to terrify her. This episode occasions one of the most valuable
revelations to the girl. The devil has the key to the room, she reasons, which
can only mean that he and the priests are in league together. An acceptable
deduction for the girl to make! (She knows that the devil and the priest are
the same person.) After five days and nites without food and water, the girl,
now, not surprisingly, is nearly dead. The bitter part of death being now past,
continued life disappoints her extremely. A Mother Superior (herself under
fear) revivifies her with bread and wine concealed for the purpose. “The nun
who was found guilty of showing mercy to a fellow sufferer was sure to find
none for herself.” We are urged to conceive at this point, “the state of that
community where humanity is a crime, where mercy is considered a weakness of
which one should be ashamed.” Imagine wanting to extend mercy, but having to
restrain yourself for fear of being found out, sent away, and replaced by
someone cruel. What a terrible tyranny to live under! And just like what
happens in gulags (they still exist), the prisoners learn to turn on each other
to score points with superiors. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The abominations related in this
narrative are so numerous as to be nearly numberless. For what a priest
interprets as a cross look, a crown of thorns is pressed upon the girl’s head.
She must wear it for six hours, during which time she is made to work while the
blood drips down. That’s just one horror story picked out of my notes at
random. During her second escape, seeking refuge from house to house (seven to
nine miles apart), she is, one can easily believe, ‘cold, hungry, almost sick,
and entirely friendless.’ The storm raining down upon her head sounds like ‘the
last convulsive sound of a broken heart.’ The prospect of freedom nerves her
onward, however, and she, ‘a friendless wanderer,’ makes it to <st1:state w:st="on">Vermont</st1:state> where she
finally finds kindness and affection in a Brainard home before she is caught
the second time. The punishments for that escape, including over a week of
starvation, nearly kill her. She is promised, in addition, a whole year of
daily punishments for this last revolt. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Some time before these
punishments are accomplished, I think, she escapes the final time, makes it all
the way to <st1:state w:st="on">Massachusetts</st1:state>
thanks to connexions made by Protestant Orangemen, and hides out there long
enough to begin a new life and even marry. Thus, the ‘dull, dreary, and
monotonous life’ that is ‘varied only by pain and privations’ is at an end,
though the young woman continues through the whole of the rest of her days in a
worrisome, agitated state. She remains always on the lookout, in fear of the
Roman Catholic priests whose hearts ‘feel no sympathy for human woe’ and their
‘system of bigotry, cruelty, and hatred, which they call religion.’ </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Such is my summary that fails to
do justice to the terrifying account that I have just listened to. <i>Life in the Grey Nunnery at Montreal </i>is
disturbing to listen to but riveting all the way. And so it will be gotten
through in short order by those who begin to listen to it, I think. The voice
of Brendan Stallard, moreover, is suitably somber and soft-spoken. The evils
that this woman was made to suffer are so vividly told that the book left me
wiped out at the end, though I was hoping for more information about her
post-convent life. I have read many of Poe’s horror stories, like <i>The Pit and the Pendulum </i>and <i>The Premature Burial</i>. Even stories like
those are less horrific than ‘the fearful outrage…upon humanity’ related by
this woman. Imagine, even the most talented writer of horror could not dream up
anything to equal the actual horrors of Roman Catholic contrivance. This may
beg the question to some, ‘Is the story true?’ In spite of all the digging that
I did, I could find no decisive answer. Some persons in the story are named,
but not fully. And the central character in the affair is something of a
mystery herself. But most persons, including the Subject, had to be left
unnamed in order to dodge the wrath of <st1:city w:st="on">Rome</st1:city>.
This seems like justification enough for these omissions. What might bestow
credibility to the woman’s testimony are answers to questions like these: Did a
nun, in that day or in some other, have to lie down in a coffin for
consecration to her office? Do the coffins of nuns follow them to their
postings? Was this nunnery ever guarded by men with guns? Answers to the
negative would be discrediting to some degree. Answers to the positive would
not prove enough. Around the year 2000, some journalists attempted a reception
into a Roman Catholic institution in <st1:state w:st="on">Quebec</st1:state>.
I recall seeing that on television. While I can’t remember the means by which
this place was guarded, it was an impenetrable fortress for sure, and those
persistent journalists were kept out of there. This contemporary incident lends
credit to the 19<sup>th</sup> century narrative. The author makes it clear that
it was not unusual, in that day, for a nun to be seen walking unassisted along
the street. It was the normalcy of this that facilitated one of her escapes.
This nuance is also to the narrative’s credit, for all nuns being as closely
guarded as the Subject was just won’t stand up to a scrutiny of history. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">What about some of the things
that she claims to have witnessed or suffered in this nunnery? Did she really
see a woman being tortured on the medieval-style rack, for instance? This claim
sounds fantastic, true. But that Roman priests used such a torture device is a
fact of history. Why not in 19<sup>th</sup> century <st1:country-region w:st="on">Canada</st1:country-region>? Is the raping of boys not a
form of torture? Who will dare to answer no to this question? Roman Catholic
priests are still torturing, then, maybe in your own city, town, village, or
hamlet. If victims were not regularly coming forward with evidence of having
been raped by priests in the 20<sup>th</sup> century, it might be plausible
that a more decent, civilized priesthood existed in the 19<sup>th</sup> century
than the vile one portrayed by the Subject. The sins and crimes among priests
today furnish ample reason to believe that there is much truth, maybe whole
truth, in this woman’s harrowing story. Furthermore, in light of the Roman
Catholic pedophilia cover-up, what this woman says about the duplicity of
priests is entirely believable. They will say or do almost anything, will they
not, to discredit testimonies to their evil deeds? May the rumor that this
story is a piece of fiction not be a lie concocted by the Roman Catholic Establishment?
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">A duplicitous person is one who
practices deception by pretending to feel or act one way while feeling or doing
the opposite. Members of the Roman Catholic clergy pretend to be torn up about
pedophilia in their ranks, and they pretend that everything is being done to
stop the abuse. They shuffle their guilty associates around the world when they
should be turning them over and confessing all that they know. This is proof
that their sympathy for victims is a sham. They are, just as they were in Sarah
J. Richardson’s day, ‘vile, unscrupulous, hypocritical pretenders.’ And the
Pope obviously wants it that way, for he makes no effort to bring justice to
his pedophile brethren and their enablers. The Pope is the chief enabler, for
he will not discipline his priests. The Subject’s assessment is sound: A kind
heart in a priest, for the Roman Catholic Church, is a cardinal sin. Some nuns,
too, are more cross than kind. The book is right about that, just as my own
sisters allege. They had nuns for teachers in the 1960’s. But nuns are wicked
mostly because this conduct runs downhill from the priests. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">What about the story’s literary
style? What can this tell us? It is difficult to believe that this young,
uneducated woman, so soon after her final escape, would have been capable of
speaking like so: “Can the world of woe itself furnish deceit of a darker dye?”
This is poetic prose of a high order. This woman might have been particularly
gifted. This is possible. But suppose that she was not. It would have been
acceptable and normal for the editor she dictated her story to, to suggest,
with her consent, apt expressions with which to add color and emotion to plain
facts. Puritan pastors, for instance, embellished in that way, the ‘Captivity
Narratives’ that they helped their suffering brethren to compose. ‘Ghost
writers’ provide the same service today, which does not lessen the truthfulness
of a memoir. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyTextIndent" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Suppose
that <i>Life in the Grey Nunnery at Montreal</i>
is nothing more than an invention posing as a chronicle. Yet the Roman Catholic
Priesthood has been guilty, at some time in its history, even in our own day,
of sins and crimes at least as vicious as those charged against it here. I’m
not saying that this is a work of fiction. In consideration of what we already
know about the Roman Church, it is believable enough. Because of the research
into Roman Catholicism that I have already done, my belief in this story
exceeds my doubt. The ‘Convent Horror Story,’ like the ‘Puritan Captivity
Narrative,’ is, indeed, a genre of literature. But then so are ‘Letters’ and
‘Remains.’ The fact that this story is categorized under a certain genre does
not mean that its contents are untrue. There are enough stories of convent
horror to constitute a genre. Maybe this is so, not because of a dishonest,
concerted aim to disgrace the Roman Catholic Church, but because the Roman
Catholic Priesthood is guilty of the atrocities alleged against it. Maybe the
complainants, in publishing their testimonies, had one chief goal in mind: to spare
unsuspecting people from similar treatment. What about the ‘pedophile priest’
scandal of our own day? Could a genre be created out of that, do you think?
Does the genre not exist already? It does, and some of the stories are so well
uncovered and documented that only the most Popish of idolaters dare deny their
legitimacy. Will those stories be believed a century or two from now? Or will
they be doubted while the priests are occupied with new perversions? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The Subject relates the appalling
abuse that the priests put upon her in very great detail. Can we believe her
claim, that as bad as all of that was, yet there were some evil deeds that
modesty forbade her to testify of? Well, imagine a Roman priest raping an altar
boy, and then ask yourself this question: What will a perverted priest <i>not</i> do? And consider, too, that a
religious woman in the 19<sup>th</sup> century is not likely to put into print
an <i>entirely</i> ‘tell-all’ book. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">If justice counted for something
in this country, we would not forgive evils like pedophilia just because they
are done under cover of religion. We would pursue justice in the religious
quarter with more zeal than we do anywhere else because religion claims to be
more upright and honorable than the rest of the world. Be not deceived into supposing
that convents and the like are not dens of iniquity still. If priests are
perpetrating pedophilia in more open places than convents, what, think you,
must be happening behind the fences and doors of Romish institutions that no
outsider may look into?</span> </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
Content: A (Upsetting,
engaging religious narrative.)<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Style: A (Active and vivid.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Tone: A (Somber and sympathetic.)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Grading Table: A: a keeper:
reread it; promote it; share it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
B: an average book:
let it go.</div>
C: read only if you
have to.The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-32775583698454980462013-05-07T14:30:00.000-06:002013-05-07T14:30:48.450-06:00FAITH (SERMON SKETCH 11)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent
blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction
from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch
will be indicated at the bottom of each post.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Faith</span></b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<span style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">“Without faith it is
impossible to please God” (Hebrews 11.6.)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction.</i> The Old Assembly’s Catechism is correct in saying that
the chief end of man is to glorify God and to enjoy him for ever. It is equally
truthful to say that man’s end is to please God, for in doing so he will also
please himself. He that pleases God is, by divine grace, journeying to the
ultimate reward. He who is ill-pleasing to God must be banished from God’s
presence. Do what you may, be as lovely and of good repute as can be, yet you
will not be pleasing to God without faith. This is an old law. Cain and Abel
brought their best offerings to God. Only Abel’s was accepted, being seasoned
with faith. This rule will hold until the last man ascends to heaven. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) An Exposition. </i>What is faith? The old Puritan writers, by far the
most sensible, tell us that faith consists of three things: knowledge, assent,
and affiance. The first thing in faith is <i>knowledge.
</i>A man cannot believe what he does not know. Some have heard the minister
cry, ‘Believe! believe! believe!’ And they have got it into their heads that
they are believers. There must be some degree of knowledge before there can be
faith. By searching and reading comes knowledge, and by knowledge comes faith,
and through faith comes salvation. But a man may know a thing and not have
faith. Therefore <i>assent </i>is necessary.
We must agree with what we know. Whosoever would be saved must know the
Scriptures, and give his full assent to them. But a man may have all this, and
yet not possess true faith. The chief part of faith is <i>affiance </i>to the truth: taking hold of it and resting on it for
salvation. I shall not be saved and delivered from wrath by knowing Christ is a
Saviour and that his atonement is sufficient. I shall be saved by making his
atonement my refuge. With faith men are saved; without it men are damned. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) An Argument. </i>Why is it impossible to please God without faith?
There is not one case in Scripture of a man pleasing God without faith. Judas
repented, and then hanged himself. Saul confessed his sins, and yet went on as
before. Like those who cast their crowns at God’s feet, we must bow in order to
be saved. And faith is necessary because works can’t save. The key of works is
broken, for you have broken the commandments. Christ alone can open heaven for
you. If you think to enter heaven by your good works, they will be kindled into
a flame wherein you must suffer for ever. Take heed of your good works; get
them after faith. To be saved and to please God, there must be union with
Christ. Christ is on the shore, so to speak, holding the rope of faith, and
when we lay hold on that, he pulls us to shore. Grappling on your works with
hooks of steel will avail you nothing. Without faith it is impossible to please
God because it is impossible to preserve holiness without faith. Many
Christians are tremendously religious in pious parlors and chapels. But if they
are exposed to ridicule, it is all over with religion until the next fine day.
That kind of religion is worse than irreligion. There is no shame in being a
follower of Jesus. The only thing to be ashamed of is hypocrisy. Be true to
your profession. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(3) A Question. </i>Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all your
heart? If so, you may hope to be saved. He that has faith has renounced his own
righteousness. True faith begets love to Christ. True faith begets good works.
No one can have faith unless he also has holiness. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection
from Conclusion.</i> “Cast yourselves upon his love and blood, his doing and
his dying, his miseries and his merits; and if you do this you shall never
fall, but you shall be saved now, and saved in that great day, when not to be
saved will be horrible indeed.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched
by M. H. Gaboury.}<span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvAQFx0frTVbN1lHIhPolmIM6z56SO0P3regqmiPSq5swZYjCt8t8fEhdAHeuNgbl7jCUl3v4F6FeeBBW_s3-jkVsYXAhv4lr5HMIp2i3z3WLsjTLlWBwYN2-ptPiLkjEzQJ7fN2j2L91k/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvAQFx0frTVbN1lHIhPolmIM6z56SO0P3regqmiPSq5swZYjCt8t8fEhdAHeuNgbl7jCUl3v4F6FeeBBW_s3-jkVsYXAhv4lr5HMIp2i3z3WLsjTLlWBwYN2-ptPiLkjEzQJ7fN2j2L91k/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-65176632879576819092013-03-28T19:22:00.000-06:002013-03-28T19:22:20.691-06:00PREACHING FOR THE POOR (SERMON SKETCH 10)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(Because of the wretched state of Red Deer’s
pulpit space, it is now, as predicted by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 3, the time to
‘pluck up that which is planted…a time to break down…a time to weep…a time to
cast away stones’ and even ‘a time to refrain from embracing.’ And it is
certainly more ‘a time to speak’ than ‘a time to keep silence.’ Be that as it
may, the wrecking ball of negative criticism should be followed by the laying
down of truth. To this end, we introduce the sermon sketch as an intermittent
blog feature. As the term ‘sketch’ implies, this kind of post, in distinction
from the usually lengthy analysis, will be pithy. The source for each sketch
will be indicated at the bottom of each post.) </span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="MsoTitle">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><b>PREACHING FOR THE POOR</b></span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" class="MsoTitle">
<span style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: large;">“The poor have the
gospel preached to them” (Matthew 11.5.)</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Introduction. </i>The disciples of John the Baptist came to some doubts
about whether Jesus was the Messiah. Then Jesus answered, “Go and show John
again those things which ye do hear and see…the poor have the gospel preached
to them.” The Jews had forgotten Old Testament prophecies too much; they only
looked for a Messiah clothed in worldly majesty and dignity. “The poor have the
gospel preached to them” will endure three translations.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(1) The Authorized Version. </i>Almost every impostor has aimed his
doctrine principally at the rich and the respectable and the princes and
nobles. Christ aims first at the poor. He begins at the lowest rank, that the
fire may burn upward. The gospel should be preached where the poor will come,
or we should take it to them. The only reason I do not take it to the street in
<st1:city w:st="on">London</st1:city> is
because this would disturb the peace. My heart is for preaching in the open
air. The last time I did it twelve thousand souls surrounded me—and I trembled.
Now we should preach <i>attractively. </i>The
Puritans were popular because they were not dry. Instead of fancy language, we
need the gospel of Christ, complete with parables and true stories. Look at the
preaching style of Jesus. People just <i>had
</i>to hear such a Preacher! Some gnashed their teeth—but multitudes crowded
around him. He was too zealous and earnest to be dull and boring; too humane to
be incomprehensible. And the gospel must be preached <i>simply. </i>Latin will do no good. There is a type of preacher, he goes
down so deep into the subject that he stirs the mud at the bottom, and cannot
find his way up again. John Bunyan, a surpassing genius, became the apostle of
Bedfordshire and Huntingdonshire because he spoke plainly. And we must preach
the <i>gospel:</i> sinfulness and
restoration, the blood of Christ and the pardon from guilt. Controversy and
logic, science and philosophy, these will not do. And the gospel must be <i>preached. </i>The battle must be fought in
the pulpit mainly, not the news-press. God will bless <i>preaching.</i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(2) The Genevan Version. </i>Calvin and Cranmer used this version much. The
meaning at our verse is that the poor are ‘gospelized.’ The cheat is made
honest, the harlot modest, etc. To gospelize a man is to save him from hell, to
blot out his sins, to make him heavenly, etc. It is the greatest miracle in the
world, greater than raising the dead. O! we love godliness anywhere! But what
is more moving than a poor girl, for instance, in an upper room, with a lean-to
roof, with nothing but a bed, a table, and a chair in there, and a candle and a
Bible? There she is on her aching knees, wrestling with God! It is an honor to
the gospel that those who want it most receive it!</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>(3) Wyckliffe’s Version. </i>‘Poor men are taking to the preaching of the
gospel.’ But—“Ah!” say some, “they had better be minding their plows or
blacksmith’s hammers.” Bunyan was a pot-mender; Whitefield, a pot-washer. And
the Reformation in <st1:country-region w:st="on">England</st1:country-region>
was more promoted by the poor than by the rich. What an honor to the gospel!
Their names are forgotten—but not in eternity. I do not undervalue high
learning. The more the better. But it is not absolutely necessary.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><i>Selection from Conclusion. </i>“And now, beloved, I have opened my
mouth for the dumb, and pleaded the cause of the poor, let me end by entreating
the poor of the flock to consider the poor man’s Christ; let me urge them to
give him their thoughts, and may the Lord enable them to yield him their
hearts. ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.’ May God bless the high and low, the rich and
poor…for his name’s sake.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
{This sermon by C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892) is sketched
by M. H. Gaboury.}</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidYsacuNn9ij8lIaGoBCDNzJwUyf0QPdmU-crZMY7UaEi6pfvc9kcG8DwWmm-rYT3TjfCUTirO6TS8ULIyK6m4D2KHtIm_PdViSoxx5mzFh4ztk_k2C-advOUX1FhTV7mkYBmG421Th4Sz/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidYsacuNn9ij8lIaGoBCDNzJwUyf0QPdmU-crZMY7UaEi6pfvc9kcG8DwWmm-rYT3TjfCUTirO6TS8ULIyK6m4D2KHtIm_PdViSoxx5mzFh4ztk_k2C-advOUX1FhTV7mkYBmG421Th4Sz/s1600/spurgeon.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-10614309535823531492013-03-14T17:02:00.000-06:002013-03-14T17:02:55.060-06:00CHARLES G. FINNEY, PRINCIPLES OF CONSECRATION (BOOK REPORT 21)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">(One’s level of piety, whether devotional or
practical, depends much on knowledge being either learned or misconceived. In
these analyses we have made mention, occasionally, of books that either help or
hinder the grand object of piety. It seems natural, consequently, to supplement
the analyses, now and again, with correlating book reports.)</span></div>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;"><br /></span>
<div class="MsoTitle">
<b>GABOURY’S CRITICAL BOOK REPORT</b><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 11.75pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 11.75pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<span style="text-align: justify;">Charles G. Finney, </span><i style="text-align: justify;">Principles of Consecration</i><span style="text-align: justify;"> (1841-1842; </span><st1:place style="text-align: justify;" w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Minneapolis</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">Minnesota</st1:state></st1:place><span style="text-align: justify;">:
Bethany House Publishers, 1990), 250 pp.</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT0NAh7TyVJ-z7WKRIVB0UfXe2oXmB4TPCawLLin-gLzE7VVtsLyhxQCXVjbtrCT0o7Nhxuja3xXqnsovNMEAFrPz-5oDYbWAFLYos1Ag3BGFbmFQ-EydpYgrAW9I5KqKgnYtxUTmzR2cj/s1600/principles+of+consecration.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjT0NAh7TyVJ-z7WKRIVB0UfXe2oXmB4TPCawLLin-gLzE7VVtsLyhxQCXVjbtrCT0o7Nhxuja3xXqnsovNMEAFrPz-5oDYbWAFLYos1Ag3BGFbmFQ-EydpYgrAW9I5KqKgnYtxUTmzR2cj/s1600/principles+of+consecration.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">The sermons in this collection
originally appeared in a periodical called <i>The
Oberlin Evangelist. </i>In spite of Finney’s overt Arminianism, which he holds
in a caustic spirit at times, I found the content of these addresses to be
occasionally beneficial. I was convicted of sometimes doing my Christian duty
in an unhappy spirit, and of being anxious to be done with it (p. 61); of
sometimes avoiding worldliness just out of fear of hell (p. 66); and of too
weakly fulfilling certain conditions of discipleship, like consecration, and
mortification of pet sins (pp. 74, 75.) And I was encouraged to persevere
through my trials by the following admonition: “These are the bright spots in
your history, in which you have an opportunity to make the deepest impression
upon the world” (p. 119.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Some sharp definitions are laid
down on vital matters in practical theology. On self-denial: “It is no proper
denial of self unless we might benefit by the thing which is given up” (p. 34.) In other words, it will not benefit
you spiritually to give up things that are not hindering your spiritual
progress. Giving up movies, sports, or television, then, will help you a lot.
On cross-bearing: “The true spirit of cross-bearing for the sake of Christ is a
state of mind that feels Christ to be such an all-sufficient portion as to
perfectly satisfy the soul in the absence of everything else” (p. 36.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">There are some thought-provoking
opinions, of which the following may be the best one: “Their selfishness led
the Jews to misunderstand and misinterpret the ceremonial law—to look upon it
as a religion of works. Instead of understanding it to be a system of typical
instruction, by and through which the most spiritual truths were taught….” (p.
230.) That the Jews were expected to meditate on the spiritual significance of
their ceremonies is not something that ever struck me very much until I read
this. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">There are some educated
judgments, not just touching upon psychology and physiology separately, but
even concerning how the mind and body relate during spiritual exercise. The <st1:city w:st="on">high point</st1:city> here is on
page 121. The subject is the need of fasting for the purpose of drawing the mercy
of God: “When the mind is strongly exercised, there is a powerful determination
of blood to the head…food cannot be taken without serious detriment to the
required state of mind. If the blood is diverted from the head to the stomach,
the strong exercise of the mind must necessarily, in a great measure, cease.”
Now that’s just plain doctoral, both medically and spiritually.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">There are criticisms leveled at
sins committed in the pulpit in Finney’s time that are even more fitting
reproofs for ministers of <i>our</i> day.
Concerning appeals to sinners to repent, Finney observes, “It often happens
that nearly all the reasons urged by ministers and others to induce people to
become Christians are mere appeals to their selfishness” (p. 176.) Is that not
what’s happening in the evangelical world of our own day? The root cause of
that kind of thing is the fear of man: “Many ministers are afraid of men…Rather
than offend someone, they immediately qualify, explain away and apologize for
what they said until they have neutralized the truth” (p. 219.) Truth is
neutralized by apologies and qualifications; and then sinners are urged to
become Christians for selfish gain! Unless you are singularly blessed, that’s
what’s going on from behind <i>your </i>pulpit.
We need straightforward finger-pointing just like this. Finney even weighs in
against bad pulpit manners: “affected pronunciation…gestures…flattery…angling
for compliments” (p. 217.) How many ministers are brave enough to confront such
pretensions in their peers? Almost no minister will do this because ministers,
generally, love themselves more than they revere God. I am not an admirer of
Finney’s theology; but ethically, at least, he is to be ranked far above your
average 20<sup>th</sup>/21<sup>st</sup> century minister. Let’s praise him at
least for that. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">I appreciate that he leaves no
room for Christians having an easy go. “Do not infer from your temporal
prosperity that God approves of your course of life or that you are the
favorite of heaven,” he says (p. 32.) Unless your happiness supersedes that
happiness you had gotten by gratification, he continues, you have cause to
doubt your conversion (p. 42.) That may be a good point to ponder. It’s tough
counsel, and we need it. But then he just takes things way too far, and even
insists on sanctification as a condition of salvation. Denying yourself <i>daily, </i>he says, is “an indispensable
condition of salvation” (p. 44.) He is obviously not speaking here, of that
initial sanctification by the Spirit that we call regeneration, but of the
practice of holiness. This is nothing else than to be saved by works, then.
That his theology is Pelagian is beyond question: “You must renounce your
selfishness…<i>You must change your heart”</i>
(p. 81, emphasis added.) That sounds like regeneration by self, or just
self-reformation. Charles Finney’s unorthodoxy is consistent, though, at least
in the following two particulars. He believes that salvation may be lost (p.
94.) That falsehood follows naturally from the belief that salvation is by
works. Also, he teaches some brand of ‘Christian Perfection’:<i> </i>the false belief that man may bring
himself to perfection in this life (pp. 49, 78, 79, 102.) So on the one hand
you can merit your salvation and lose it; on the other, you can save yourself
and perfect yourself too. It’s all up to you, one way or the other—this is his
teaching. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Though his definition of total
depravity is <i>totally </i>incorrect, this
comment will show what Charles Finney is capable of as a stylist: “This is
moral depravity—enmity against God—entire consecration to self-gratification”
(p. 166.) Not bad. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">His opinions on Christian
practice vis-à-vis politics are worth reading. But nothing is said there in <i>The Necessity of Human Governments </i>that
has not been more convincingly argued. For the record, Charles Finney spoke out
against the wrongs done by <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>
to the Indians and the church’s silence about it, and he opposed slavery. Any <st1:place w:st="on">Union</st1:place> formed upon a principle that would support slavery,
or that would oppose the abolition of it, was boldly and plainly labeled ‘a
league of iniquity’ by him (p. 137.) He also denounced ‘duel-fighting…in
Congress,’ which happened nearly every year in his day (p. 138.) This cultural
context makes the volume peculiarly interesting. Because Charles Finney’s
theology is shady, though, I can just <i>cautiously</i>
recommend this book. </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Content: B (Moral, theologically
weak, sometimes heretical.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Style: B (Occasionally dashing.)</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> Tone: B (Challenging, but not civil
enough.) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Grading Table: A: a keeper:
reread it; promote it; share it.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> B: an average book: let it go.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> C: read only if you have to. </span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1816226961217630393.post-56094578131365782062013-03-01T20:48:00.000-07:002013-03-01T20:48:28.156-07:00OPEN LETTER TO PASTOR BRADLEY<br />
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Mr. Bradley is the President of the Ministerial
Association here in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Red Deer</st1:place></st1:city>.
He gave no answer to my warning about the suspicious fellow he received into
his pulpit: Mr. Hawkins. (About that, see the archive to the right: September,
2012.) And he gave no response, either, to the following warning I sent to him
last month (February 2013.) Can the president of this city’s ministerial tell a
wolf from a sheep? It seems not. Of course, this should not surprise anyone,
for the Red Deer Ministerial is made up of both orthodox and heretical
ministers, which kind of ‘brotherhood,’ or blend of light and darkness, is
condemned and disallowed by the apostle Paul in the closing verses of 2
Corinthians 6. The president of a ministerial body consisting of sheep and
wolves cannot be that discerning of any minister! He can’t discern up close and
personal. It is no wonder that he can’t discern beyond his own mongrel
pasture! <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Here are, from the magazine mentioned in the
letter, the affecting photos of this suspicious, globe-trotting Dr. Saddiki
(whose doctorate is merely honorary.) He has a fancy fable to fool you with.
Beware of his ministry of mammon. The man wants <i>your </i>money. </span><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKFkhJs-6F8UA6o-b9LymUjMl9DNlq1YrVWAkrve4Kdapv_vLRjKA4bb81vzQRdJ1sflmS3gamDH_CPY2PXiYsL7qBD2zhd5Du_7dz_tXZFm3SgcZe3Jdcbjdd6Ie5-rpVGH-WCfEVHZ53/s1600/bradley+a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="257" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjKFkhJs-6F8UA6o-b9LymUjMl9DNlq1YrVWAkrve4Kdapv_vLRjKA4bb81vzQRdJ1sflmS3gamDH_CPY2PXiYsL7qBD2zhd5Du_7dz_tXZFm3SgcZe3Jdcbjdd6Ie5-rpVGH-WCfEVHZ53/s400/bradley+a.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWUwZnA4hAGLBHs-lbJjKrKBVDJLg5-deFfM2TsqaUW2_peK6Uxw8l4N_kZXcPiWH6EIQz0F8awrO_HXpO05xokTH_ej_RKQzBPsLffBIZvbqbkvsoCt-J2uHyyHelqGwjELl8sDwLQV3Y/s1600/bradley+b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWUwZnA4hAGLBHs-lbJjKrKBVDJLg5-deFfM2TsqaUW2_peK6Uxw8l4N_kZXcPiWH6EIQz0F8awrO_HXpO05xokTH_ej_RKQzBPsLffBIZvbqbkvsoCt-J2uHyyHelqGwjELl8sDwLQV3Y/s400/bradley+b.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Yes, watch out, for Mr. Bradley may soon invite
this wolf to town, to the disservice of many a sheep! Such is Mr. Bradley’s
discernment and care! Remember Saddiki’s name, mark it down, and be watchful!
Spare yourselves a mauling once in awhile at least! Making money through
manipulation is the sham minister’s chief employment. A few years ago a
politician down in <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:state>
was accused of groping wallets. The sham minister will maul your money just
like that! Needless to say, he will do no good to your soul!</span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">To
the letter, now, that I sent to Mr. Bradley last month:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">February 2013<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Mr. Bradley<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;"><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Liberty</st1:place></st1:city>
Christian Assembly<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Mr. Bradley,<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Greetings again from churchesofreddeer.ca:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">I have a copy of the Missions Fest magazine that
was given out in your church. You recommended an article in there about Dr.
Saddiki (or Siddiki, for the name is spelled both ways on the page.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">We should be instantly suspicious of an
‘evangelist’ who claims that the Lord has worked some great miracle upon his
body because “many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John
4.1.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Notice that the doctors who spoke so
despairingly of Dr. Saddiki’s Job-like affliction are never named. Why not?
Notice that Dr. Saddiki’s ministry consists of ‘biblical principles for
success.’ Notice (in the picture below the article) the man’s fancy suit and
tie and what looks to be his ‘trophy’ wife. These signs are bad omens, for they
are exactly the characteristics that we discover in the lives of prosperity
preachers of the greediest, basest sort. These men are all about sham, show,
and stuff, which they sum up in one word: ‘success.’ <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">After noticing these things, I predicted that if
I were to go to this man’s website, I would see there a mammon-centered effort,
not a Christ-centered ministry. What did I discover? I discovered a very
visible ‘donation’ button. I discovered the book he has written: <i>Kingdom Principles of Financial Success, </i>which
is about ‘God’s abundant life of prosperity and financial success.’ I
discovered the other book he wrote: <i>How
to Prosper in any Recession. </i>His episode of shingles happened in 1987. His
books were issued in 1999 and 2009. My, what spiritual progress the man has
made! After all this time— after the big miracle upon his body and the other
upon his heart, his mind is still fixed on money matters, not spiritual
realities! It says in the article that after his conversion, “the Holy Spirit
brought a voracious spiritual hunger that caused him to want to know about
Jesus.” A voracious hunger for money has nothing to do with knowledge about
Jesus, though. This article is a clever ad to steer readers to this man’s
website, where money, not Jesus, is the aim and king. His education comes out
of Rhema, as does that of his wife, which institution is the manufacturing
house for prosperity preachers who make it their business to fly all over the
world proclaiming healings and miracles where none can be found, which they do
to receive undeserved glory and to draw gobs of money through which to glut
their lives with earthly riches and amusements.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Are you suspicious of this man yet? You should
be. What happens when a man is saved and cured by the Lord? Does he become
Christ-centered? That’s the way it went for A. B. Simpson, the founder of the
once-doctrinal <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Alliance</st1:place></st1:city>
denomination. How come this is not the way it turned out for Mr. Saddiki? Is it
possible that he is a liar who has money for his god? A man who has received
Jesus Christ does not preach mammon. You do not believe that one would, do you?
You do not believe a mammon-centered ministry to be the fruit of the Spirit, do
you? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Did the New Testament disciples ever preach
mammon? I cannot find that they ever did. Do we have any word from Jesus about
treasures on earth? He tells us to lay up treasures of another kind, doesn’t
he? If Dr. Saddiki really saw Jesus like he says he did, or encountered him in
a saving way, would he not be in harmony with what Jesus says must be the new
disciple’s aim? Would a saved Saddiki not be feeding us heavenly doctrine about
Jesus instead of points on how to lay up treasures on earth? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Jesus’ word to new disciples is, “But lay up for
yourselves treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6.20.) What are ‘principles for
success’ but the opposite aim? Jesus says, “But seek ye first the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">kingdom</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">God</st1:placename></st1:place>, and his righteousness; and all
these things [food and clothing] shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6.33) What
is Mr. Saddiki seeking? The kingdom of heaven? No, but ‘kingdom principles of
financial success.’ And does Mr. Saddiki preach the abundant spiritual life
that Jesus speaks of? No, but an ‘abundant life of prosperity and financial
success.’ Jesus says, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be
also” (Matthew 6.21.) Where is Mr. Saddiki’s heart? It is set upon treasures on
earth, isn’t it? After he was healed and saved, or ‘transformed,’ the article
concludes, “Dr. Siddiki’s passion has been to know and serve the Lord Jesus
Christ.” Why the books on mammon then? Should we not expect a ‘transformed’ man
to be passionate about preaching ‘Christ crucified’ instead? That’s what the
apostle Paul did when <i>he</i> was saved
and healed! What does it say in the book of Acts about this? “And straightway
he preached Christ” (9.20.) Let’s compare, shall we? Dr. Saddiki suffers
(presumably), and then after getting saved and healed, he preaches mammon. The
apostle Paul is saved and healed, upon which he preaches Christ ‘straightway,’
then his other sundry sufferings begin, endure throughout the course of his
life, and then he is martyred. These two testimonies are quite different from
each other, aren’t they? Yes, one is about prospering on earth and an easy
life; the other is about an arduous life and a cruel death for the sake of a
Saviour and Lord truly known, felt, obeyed, served, and worshiped. I didn’t
even mention the trophy wife that Paul didn’t get! Is Dr. Saddiki a man you
should be recommending to your congregation? This man’s purpose is the precise
opposite of what a disciple’s ought to be! “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall
know them” (Matthew 7.20.) Know who? False prophets (verse 15.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Mr. Bradley, if you are a good shepherd, you
will share this letter with your people, or you will at least make them aware
of the dangers of what you recommended. There is more than enough to be
gathered from the article and from the man’s website to give us reason to doubt
his fantastic-sounding story. And the man’s mission is about as different from
a biblical one as that of Barjesus from the apostle Paul’s! (Acts 13.6.) To put
Dr. Saddiki and Barjesus in the same camp is not farfetched, for Barjesus
sought to turn people from the faith and “to pervert the right ways of the
Lord” (verses 8, 10.) I have shown you that Dr. Saddiki’s way is a perversion
of what Jesus tells us the disciple’s way must be. And to urge Christian people
to pursue money, which is what Mr. Saddiki does, is an attempt, whether he
realizes it or not, to turn them away from the faith. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Should you warn your people about this man whose
testimony you recommended, maybe? I admonish you to be vigilant about articles
and magazines before you recommend them. Because of your position, what you say
influences what people do. Why don’t you find out what the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Toronto General</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Hospital</st1:placetype></st1:place>
knows about Dr. Saddiki? The story over there (if there is even one to tell)
will be at odds with the fable we are told in this article. You recommended the
man. Why don’t you look into it? A man with integrity and a biblical work ethic
would do nothing less. This is your job to do, not mine. Whatever the true
story is, the fact is that this man is all about earthly riches, not the riches
of Christ’s person, word, and work. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Your responsibility is to be sound in speech.
What you say from your ministerial position should never be of the sort that
may be justly condemned (Titus 2.8.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">If you are a good shepherd, you will right your
wrong. I have done my part in bringing this matter to your attention. One Day
you will give an account for the people who are deceived through your careless,
thoughtless recommendations.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span></div>
The Analysthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13095837475306787653noreply@blogger.com0