Bible League Quarterly

October - December 2012

Issue no. 451 The Bible League Trust Registered Charity No. 281867 | Instituted May 3rd 1892

Object of the Bible League

To promote the reverent study of the Holy Scriptures and to resist the varied attacks upon their inspiration, infallibility and sole sufficiency as the Word of God.

Website: www.bibleleaguetrust.org

The Trustees

Chairman of the Trust: Malcolm H Watts Editor of the Quarterly: John P Thackway Other council members: David J Butler, Francis J Harris, Aaron J Lewis, Pooyan Mehrshahi, David Oldham, Neil Pfeiffer, Stephen A Toms, Thomas R. Yates

Contact our Secretary

Mrs Ruth Ward, 46 Bulbrige Road, Wilton, Salisbury SP2 0LE Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01722 742270

Contact our Editor

Rev. John Thackway, Fairlea, From Park Road, Holywell CH8 7SP Email: [email protected] Telephone: 01352 714879

Subscriptions

The annual subscription to the Quarterly is £8 in the UK and £12.50 overseas, including postage of the four issues each year. You can subscribe online to our Quarterly here.

We thank all our subscribers for their generous financial support, particularly friends who send more than their subscription in the form of donations. The latter can be Gift Aided - please contact our secretary for a declaration form. Such gifts enable us to continue publishing the Quarterly and our other literature, which is so needed in these days. In this Issue

A REAL CHRISTIAN 4

THE CHANGING FACE OF EVANGELICALISM 5

CHOICE SAYINGS 14

CONTINUED FIEC COOPERATION WITH POLISH ECUMENISTS 16

HOW DO WE MAINTAIN A SPIRITUAL FRAME OF MIND IN A TIME OF DECLENSION WITHIN

THE VISIBLE CHURCH ? 22

ALL THE BIBLE! 23

A PUBLICATION FOR OUR TIME 26

GOD’S GOOD HAND 31

BOOK REVIEWS 34 A REAL CHRISTIAN

James Smith

“Things that accompany salvation” Hebrews 6:9

Let us inquire. What are they? Do we possess them? Spiritual life, evidenced by convictions of sin; hatred to sin; crying to God for deliverance from sin; groaning under the weight of the body of sin and death; a tender conscience, which trembles at sin, and feels deeply for God’s glory; a filial fear of God, lest we should dishonour His name, disgrace His cause, and grieve His love; an anxiety and deep-rooted concern for holiness, both in the heart and the life; contrition or brokenness of heart for sin, accompanied with holy mourning before God; fervour in devotion, earnestly breathing out the desires of the heart before God, or grieving when it is not so; a jealousy of self, as to our sincerity and uprightness of intention, lest we should be led astray by the corruptions which are within; a chaste conversation coupled with fear; diligence in the means of grace; searching the scriptures, to ascertain our real state and condition. What is the Lord’s will and our duty? An increasing discovery of our own weakness, imperfection, and misery. He that hath these things shall never finally fall.

O, give me, Saviour, give me still My poverty to know; Increase my faith; each day in grace And knowledge may I grow: Unfold the glories of Thy cross, For which I count all else as loss. THE CHANGING FACE OF EVANGELICALISM

From the address at the 120th Anniversary meeting of the Bible League in London, Saturday 23 June 2012.

Dr. Alan Cairns

“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).

This is the testimony of every true evangelical, a term that is not easy to define. I think none of us would disagree with what Dr. Lloyd Jones said in 1971: “The situation today is such that we must not take this term ‘evangelical’ for granted. We must rediscover its meaning. We must define it again. And we must be ready to fight for it and defend it.”

Nor would we disagree with what J. I. Packer said in 1978: “What makes an evangelical will be that which in the eyes of the New Testament writers makes a Christian.”

Or with D. A. Carson’s assessment: “Evangelicalism, at its best, is the locus of where the gospel is defended and proclaimed.”

In Romans 1, we have a classic statement of what in the eyes of the apostles made a Christian. Here we have the gospel clearly stated, proclaimed and defended. In summarizing Paul’s teaching in this chapter and indeed this epistle, we may broadly define the gospel as the divine revelation of God’s way of salvation from sin, death and hell into a right relationship with God through the sole merits of the Lord Jesus Christ, provided to us by grace alone and received by faith alone. This is New Testament Christianity. This is true evangelicalism.

If we are genuinely unashamed of the gospel — if we are true evangelicals — we will demonstrate our faith in,, and faithfulness to, the gospel by declaring it with great clarity, confidence and courage. Here are the classic elements of evangelicalism. Historically evangelicals have differed on many things, but on these they were united.

But not any longer. Once, despite their differences, we had “evangelicals.” Today we have a bewildering array of people claiming the name: New Evangelical, Conservative Evangelicals; Post-conservative Evangelicals, Young Evangelical, Radical Evangelicals, Worldly Evangelicals, Liberal Evangelicals, and even Roman Catholic Evangelicals. Just to list such groupings of professed evangelicals gives us a broad hint as to the changing face of evangelicalism. I suggest three basic areas where we see disturbing trends:

CONFUSING THE IDENTITY OF EVANGELICALS

A few years ago, a Canadian company, The Angus Reid Group, did a survey of people in 33 countries to discover the varying identities of evangelicals. They formulated their questions around British historian David Bebbington’s four identifying beliefs of evangelicals: the centrality of (1) the Cross; (2) the Bible; (3) conversion; and (4) evangelism. In this survey, a person qualified as an evangelical if he could strongly agree with these four statements:

“Through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God provided a way for the forgiveness of my sins.”

“The Bible is the inspired word of God” — or to whatever degree, “The Bible is God’s word and is to be taken literally, word for word.”

“I have committed my life to Christ and consider myself to be a converted Christian.”

“It is important to encourage non-Christians to become Christians.”

The problem with this approach is that the questions posed do not probe the identity of a true evangelical. They are deliberately vague where historically evangelicalism has been explicit and definitive. Thus, it is not much wonder that, as New Evangelical historian Mark Noll said, “The distribution of beliefs and practices traditionally known as ‘evangelical’ is surprisingly wide.”

This is the kind of grab-bag definition of evangelicalism being used by many of today’s evangelicals. On this basis, we learn that a Roman Catholic who believes all his church’s dogmas may really be an evangelical. In fact, according Billy Graham, Pope John Paul II was the greatest evangelist of the 20th century.

This vague way of identifying an evangelical is the basis for the late Chuck Colson’s argument for Evangelical-Roman Catholic togetherness: He argued that we face a common enemy, secular humanism, and there are just too many Roman Catholics in the world for us to leave them out of our reckoning. They are true Christians and thus our fellow soldiers in the cause of Christ. Using the same indefinite way of identifying evangelicals, we now have Oneness Pentecostalists such as T.D. Jakes and word of faith prosperity preachers welcomed as evangelicals. By today’s confusing standards, evangelicalism has become a very big tent that houses all sorts of deviant beliefs and practices.

REVISING THEOLOGY

Albert Mohler has observed, “A good many who claim to be evangelicals now want to affirm something other than evangelical theology.” He is right. For some years now, many professed evangelicals have been plotting a radically different theological course from historic evangelicalism. Roger Olson, a New Evangelical historian, listed the trends he saw in those evangelicals who are “shedding theological conservatism.” In his list were eagerness to engage in ecumenical dialogue; refusing to be limited to the Bible as the source of their theology; adopting an “open” view of God in which He no longer is the omniscient Sovereign Lord who works all things according to the counsel of His will, but is rather a “risk taker” for whom the future is hidden, because it depends on the free choices of His creatures; and acceptance of some form of universalism.

Thus, at the most vital points in the doctrinal beliefs of evangelicalism, many modern professed evangelicals have adopted heretical views. We will consider two major theological shifts: with regard to Scripture, and Salvation.

Scripture

The gospel is a divine revelation, conveyed to us by and in the inspired and infallible Word of God, the Bible. Historically, you could never be considered an evangelical if you did not believe this. However, today many professed evangelicals no longer hold this view of Scripture. Some have adopted what is known as modified inerrancy. According to this, the Bible contains a variety of errors, especially in the areas of history and science, and records a number of conversations and events that probably never actually took place. Yet, they insist, the Bible is without error in all that it “intends” to teach.

Other “evangelicals” go even further. They propose the theory of limited infallibility — that is, the Bible claims to be an infallible guide only in matters of faith and practice. By so limiting the infallibility of Scripture, Daniel Fuller wrote, “One can be relaxed in the presence of all scientific and historical inquiries, even those which impinge on the subjects alluded to in Scripture.”

F.F. Bruce lent his support to an even more radical view of Scripture when he wrote the foreword for a book by Dewey M. Beegle that went a lot further than even Fuller dared to go. According to Beegle, even biblical doctrine may be wrong! Many years ago, another professed evangelical, Clarence Bass, wrote: “Many of us admit that the Bible unquestionably contains factual errors, but we still maintain it is inerrant in Divine purpose.”

This downward trend continues. Some “evangelicals” now use redaction criticism to tell us that New Testament writers “modified” the written sources they allegedly employed and the oral tradition that supposedly lay behind them to suit their own purpose — for example, putting words into the mouth of the Lord Jesus Christ that He never spoke, and creating events in His ministry that never happened.

Thankfully, men that are more orthodox have written cogently to expose and refute such heretical views, though sadly they rarely allow what they believe to lead them to any meaningful separation from those who are in reality denying the faith.

Salvation

In recent times, some “evangelicals” have revived ancient heresies to attack the evangelical faith at its very core - the doctrine of salvation. Consider the “evangelical” attacks on three vital aspects of that doctrine.

Atonement and Penal Satisfaction

The truth that the Lord Jesus Christ made a substitutionary atonement, that his death was one of penal satisfaction, forms the very heart of the gospel. On that all evangelicals have been united. Now, professing evangelicals outspokenly deny and attack it.

Clark Pinnock and Robert C. Brow are two of a growing number of professed evangelicals who believe that Anselm and Calvin led us astray with their views of penal satisfaction and vicarious atonement. They propose a “less violent” or punitive view of atonement. In fact, in 2001, Eerdmans (reputedly an evangelical publisher) published The Nonviolent Atonement, by J. Denny Weaver. Here in the UK, Bishop N.T. Wright called the traditional interpretation of Galatians 3:10-13 “Nonsense.”

Steve Chalke, an Emergent Church writer, called penal substitution “cosmic child abuse.” Another Emergent leader, Brian McLaren wrote, “Bona fide evangelicals (such as Mark Baker, Joel Green, and N.T. Wright) are suggesting that the gospel is not atonement-centred, or, at least, not penal-substitutionary-atonement-centred.” McLaren gives his own view that penal substitution “presents a God who is incapable of forgiving. Unless He kicks somebody else.”

In 2000, IVF published a blistering rejection of the old evangelical doctrine of the atonement, written by Joel Green and Mark Baker. This book charges those of us who maintain it with preaching “the perceived necessity of placating an emotion-laden God ever on the verge of striking out against any who disobey his every will.”

Justification

The doctrine of justification, famously identified by Martin Luther as the truth that marks either the standing or falling of a church, is another inalienable mark of true evangelicalism. Now it also is under attack, especially in branches of evangelical Reformed Churches.

The major challenge is coming from what is termed “The New Perspective(s) on Paul” (NPP). This novel theory is based on the ideas of theological liberals, but has been championed by a number of professed evangelicals. The theory takes a new look at the Protestant Reformation and its central doctrine, justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Over the past number of years, NPP has gained a lot of traction, especially through the efforts of the English “evangelical” Bishop, N.T Wright.

In short, NPP teaches that the Reformers grievously misunderstood Paul. They were wrong in their view that he taught a forensic justification. Such an idea was never part of his thinking. They were also wrong in teaching that Paul condemned the Jews for a works- salvation theology. That, according to NPP, was not what the Jews believed. They were not given to self-righteousness or legalism.

According to NPP, the Reformers were also wrong in their belief that justification deals with how a person gets right with God. It is not even a doctrine of soteriology at all, but of ecclesiology. It is not God’s declaring us righteous by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness but His declaration that the believer is already a member of the people of God, a relationship entered through baptism.

Again, the Reformers were wrong in emphasizing the salvation of individual sinners instead of God’s world-transforming power proclaimed in the gospel about Christ the Lord. Paul did not preach a new religious experience but simply announced what he saw as a public fact — Christ had been crucified, had risen again, and was therefore validated as Israel’s Messiah. Yet again, according to NPP, the Reformers were wrong in insisting on sola fide, justification by faith alone. Wright distinguishes present justification from future justification at the last day. Present justification is our acceptance as members of the covenant community and is entered by baptism. Future justification is by faith, which includes both faith and faithfulness. That is, ultimately our final justification and entrance into glory will be based on how faithful we have been; it is justification by one’s own works. In this, NPP adopts essentially the theology of the Council of Trent. NPP is a total repudiation of the Reformation. Yet its proponents in many cases are accepted as evangelicals.

Pluralism Replacing the Exclusiveness of Christ

Pluralism is the belief that many may be saved through merits of Christ who never personally place their faith in Him. The idea is that people can be saved through knowledge of God in general revelation despite their ignorance of the gospel or even of the very name of Jesus. This was the idea behind Billy Graham’s famous statements to Robert Schuller:

I think everybody who knows Christ, whether they’re conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. ... God’s purpose is to call out a people for His name, whether they come from the Muslim world, the Buddhist world, the Christian world, the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus. ...I think they are saved and are going to be in heaven with us.

I’ve met people in various parts of the world ... that have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God (emphasis added).

In case some may still be left outside the number of the saved, some “evangelicals” propose a couple of other old heresies, post-mortem encounter, sometimes rather grandly called eschatological evangelism. This piece of jargon simply means that the gospel will be preached to the dead, who then will have the chance to respond believingly. And if that doesn’t bring them in, according to many professed evangelicals, they still will not go to hell. They will be annihilated.

REALIGNING RELATIONSHIPS

Modern evangelicalism is realigning itself in two areas, the Church and the world. Church Relations

Many years ago, Dr. Lloyd Jones asked:

Is it right to tolerate in the same church people whose views on the essentials of the faith are diametrically opposed? Is it right in the light of NT teaching that we regard such people as ‘brethren’?

Today’s evangelicals answer with a resounding Yes! Since all baptized persons are to be treated as Christian brethren, ecumenical togetherness is the order of the day.

Billy Graham expressed the new evangelical ecumenical spirit when at the 1961 WCC Congress in New Delhi he asked the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsey, an avowed liberal: “Do we have to part company because we disagree on methods and theology?” Graham evidently believed the answer should be “No,” and many modern evangelicals entirely agree.

Alister McGrath argues that rigorous definition of evangelicalism excludes a large number of people who regard themselves, and are regarded by others, as evangelicals. That thinking induces evangelical ministries to embrace openly non-evangelicals as evangelical brethren. For example, Navpress published a book by the Roman Catholic “evangelical” priest, Keith Fournier. Eerdmans went even further and published a book by Robert L. Millet, with a Foreword by Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary. Millet is a Mormon who tenaciously holds on to every particle of his cult’s dogmas, but somehow, with the realignment modern evangelicals are making with other faith groups, he now passes as some kind of evangelical.

We may add an almost endless body of evidence of this realignment. J. I. Packer joined Chuck Colson and other evangelical leaders to produce Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT). Evangelicals routinely hold “discussions” with all sorts of groups, as if their differences were all a matter of misunderstanding. Evangelicals are fully involved in the World Council of Churches (WCC) and other ecumenical endeavours. Not only is this ecumenical involvement a betrayal of evangelical theology, it is a negation of the mission evangelicals have always pursued. Both the WCC and ECT are unhappy with evangelizing Roman Catholics and, of course, if evangelicals have accepted that all baptized persons are to be regarded as Christians, they can hardly disagree. There is another ecumenical realignment trend that is very evident in evangelical circles, what has been called “Christian co-belligerency” against a common foe. Frequently evangelicals join forces with Roman Catholics and other non-evangelicals to form a united “Christian” witness against abortion or similar social evil. Thus not only at denominational level but at grass roots level evangelicals are being conditioned to fudge or deny the distinctives of evangelicalism in favour of a new ecumenical definition of what makes a Christian.

Compromise with anti-Christian error can never further the cause of the gospel. That is a truth that has identified evangelicalism. However, today’s New Evangelicals deliberately eschew all idea of separation from and confrontation of perverters of the gospel. They set out to be non-confrontational, except for condemning Fundamentalists or Pietists! It seems that today’s evangelicals are against almost nothing. However, as Martyn Lloyd Jones pointed, “One of the first signs that a man is ceasing to be truly evangelical is that he ceases to be concerned about negatives.” We cannot be for Christ without being against all that is against His gospel.

Relations with the World

Increasingly, evangelicals are joining the liberal chorus about redeeming our culture — always, it seems, by becoming immersed in it. They routinely condemn anyone who seeks to live by the old evangelical standards as a pietist and a legalist. Historically, evangelicals have not embraced popular culture but have lived in separation from it — not as legalists seeking to merit divine favour but as grateful recipients of free grace. Once again, I may quote Dr. Lloyd Jones:

Evangelicals pay great attention to the way in which people live. They are strict in their behaviour. This used to be one of the most prominent characteristics of evangelicalism. [People] used to describe ... the evangelicals in these terms, Ah, they’re people who don’t go to cinemas, they don’t drink, and they don’t smoke. I do not think they say that about them anymore. There has been a great change, but I am one of those who believe that there was a great deal to be said for the old position.

To put it bluntly, most modern evangelicals of all stripes are what our forefathers would have called worldly. Thankfully, the picture is not altogether bleak. There is evidence that some evangelicals are seeing the need for a return to a genuine experience of holiness of life, a holiness that is a Spirit-powered, gospel-driven, and faith-fuelled commitment to an active pursuit of sanctifying grace. This is a welcome development, but it is very much a minority movement. Evangelicalism in general is deeply mired in worldliness.

WHAT MUST BE OUR RESPONSE?

Faced with such departures from, and attack upon, evangelical faith and practice by “evangelicals,” what must be our response? We must grasp with fresh clarity the true evangelical faith. We must act on what we believe and live separated, holy lives in the power of the Holy Spirit; we must practice genuine piety. Then we must stand without fear or compromise for the essentials of our faith. That calls us to separation from the great apostasy from the faith we are witnessing all around us. We must, however, distinguish separation from schism. We must stand together with those “of like precious faith” and not indulge in needless division in the ranks of true evangelical believers. And we must give ourselves to prayer, for it is only as we prevail with God that we can ever experience His power and blessing on our lives and labours. Finally, we must disseminate the good seed of the Word everywhere. We must take the gospel to the masses and adopt Paul’s words as our motto: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth.” CHOICE SAYINGS

Hezekiah was a holy man, yet he swells big under mercy. (2 Chronicles 32). No sooner does God lift his house higher than others, but he lifts up his heart in pride higher than others. When God hath made him high in honors, riches, victories, aye, and in spiritual experiences, then his heart flies high, and he forgets God, and forgets himself, and forgets that all his mercies were from free mercy, that all his mercies were but borrowed mercies. Surely, it is better to lack any mercy than an humble heart, it is better to have no mercy than lack an humble heart. ~ Thomas Brooks

He is righteous to reward according to deserts; He is gracious to reward above deserts; yea, He is merciful to reward without deserts; and how, then, can I doubt of His will to help me? ~ Sir Richard Baker

There is much misunderstanding today about the scope of those words “Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not unto thine own understanding” (Proverbs 3:5), and only too often fanaticism is confounded with faith. It needs to be clearly insisted upon that the exercise of faith does not preclude the use of all legitimate means, though we are not to rest in the means alone, but rather count upon God’s blessing the same. To decline the locking of my doors and the fastening of my windows when there is an epidemic of burglary in the neighbourhood, or to retire for the night and leave a roaring fire in the grate, under the pretext of counting upon God’s protecting my property, is not trusting but tempting Him should any disagree with that statement, let him carefully ponder Matthew 4:6,7! Faith in God does not preclude the discharge of my performance of duty, both in taking precautions against danger or using proper means for success.

“Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (Romans 10:17). This does not mean that faith is originated by hearing the Word of God, any more than that the shining of the sun imparts sight to the eye. No, faith is bestowed by a sovereign act of the Spirit, and then it is instructed and nourished by the Word. As an unimpaired eye receives light from the sun and is thereby enabled to perceive objects, so faith takes in the testimony of God and is regulated thereby. My acceptance of the Truth does not create faith, but makes manifest that I have faith, and it becomes the sure ground on which my faith rests. ~ A.W. Pink In regeneration nature is not ruined, but rectified.. The convert is the same man, but new made. The faculties of his soul are not destroyed, but they are refined, the same viol, but new tuned. Christ gave not the blind man new eyes, but a new sight to the old ones. Christ did not give Lazarus a new body, but enlivened his old body, So God in conversion does not bestow a new understanding, but a new light to the old; not a new soul, but a new life to the old one. ~ George Swinnock

Love is the only thing in which we can retaliate with God. If God be angry with us, we must not be angry again; if He chide us, we must not chide Him again; but if God loves us, we must love Him again. There is nothing in which we can answer God again, but love. We must not give Him word for word, but we must give Him love for love.

Love to God is armor of proof against error. For want of hearts full of love, men have heads full of error; unholy opinions are for want of holy affections. ~ Thomas Watson CONTINUED FIEC COOPERATION WITH POLISH ECUMENISTS

Peter Nicholson and Charles Soper

If there is justice in the claim that an obsessive attitude to separation results in withdrawals over lesser matters, it is equally true that a refusal to avoid evangelicals who ally themselves with error tends to degenerate into a position of not separating from error at all. A case in point is seen in the present position of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches, which has recently blurred its definition of those from whom separation is necessary, while in practice cutting itself off from those whose efforts to remain separate from error remain unchanged.

The statement made by Richard Underwood, who at the time was General Secretary of the FIEC, that a missionary sent to Poland by a flagship FIEC church (Carey Baptist, Reading) “is not ecumenically compromised”1 affords a striking illustration of the FIEC’s current blithe indifference. We are, after all, talking about a man who in his own words for years “started Catholic fellowships”2 in Poland, a longstanding faculty member3 of a seminary that proudly styles itself a “promoter of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.”4 No less astounding is the statement, made by one of the pastors of the sending church, that the missionary “is quite happy to affirm the FIEC Statement on Ecumenism.”5

The pastor would do well to explore the writings of the missiologist Paul Hiebert, who has exercised a profound influence on the missionary’s teaching and practice, someone for whom the concept of having to adhere to statements of this kind was quite passé. What could be the explanation for this alarming display of apathy? Is this just a case of closing ranks, saving face or keeping up appearances; does it perhaps stem from a fear of being labelled “hyper-separatist” – something which is sure to result from the use of epithets of this kind to critique secondary separation; or does the real reason have a far more sinister basis? The FIEC’s 1996 Statement on Ecumenism,6 which so plainly declared that the FIEC does

1 http://www.strateias.org/verdict.htm

2 http://www.strateias.org/central.doc

3 http://www.ewst.pl/en/?page_id=493

4 http://www.fkp.ewst.pl/organizatorzy/ewst/

5 http://www.strateias.org/careyreport.htm

6 http://www.strateias.org/96statement.htm not unite in public acts of worship and outreach with Roman Catholics, apparently left no room for doubt in the matter. However, the offending document is now no longer in force, and it is salutary to recall a remark made in reference to the 1996 Statement in an article7 in the July 2009 issue of the Bible League Quarterly: “Let us hope this is also not shortly to be withdrawn.”

The FIEC’s involvement in Poland has been steadily rising in recent years, mainly through its involvement with the interdenominational alliance Razem dla Ewangelii (Together for the Gospel) and the succession of FIEC speakers, including several of its most senior figures, at conferences associated with RDE. Something these FIEC men all seem disconcertingly keen to play down is the ecumenical associations of some of RDE’s leading figures. As an example it is sufficient to mention one of the alliance’s four board members, Baptist theologian and pastor – and yet another product of the “ministry” of the FIEC-endorsed missionary – Mateusz Wichary.8 When he took over as editor of the aggressively ecumenical Baptist monthly Słowo Prawdy (Word of Truth) in January 2009, Mr. Wichary used his first issue9 as a major position statement on the subject of ecumenism, in which he posed the rhetorical question “Should we be afraid of ecumenism?” - the answer to which was evidently a resounding No. This publication was followed by a blog entry in which Mr. Wichary expressed his unqualified support10 for the Manhattan Declaration. 11

At the end of the same year, on 11 December 2009, Mr. Wichary organised a conference at the Polish Baptist Union’s theological seminary in Warsaw where he is a lecturer,12 on the subject of John Calvin and his influence on Baptist thought. The conference13 included a paper read by Roman Catholic priest Radosław Kimsza of the Roman Catholic theological seminary in Białystok. At the Białystok seminary a month later, on 18 January 2010, what was called an ‘ecumenical meeting’14 was in turn held by Mr. Kimsza, at which one of the

7 http://www.strateias.org/downgrade.pdf

8 http://www.razemdlaewangelii.pl/together-for-the-gospel

9 http://baptysci.ca/pkchb/multimedia/sp/sp_2009_01-02.pdf

10 http://proteologia.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/deklaracja-manhattanska/

11 http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx

12 http://www.wbst.edu.pl/viewpage.php?page_id=4

13 http://baptysci.ca/pkchb/multimedia/sp/sp_2010_01.pdf

14 http://www.archibial.pl/ogloszenia.php?ogl=254 guest speakers was Mr. Wichary, instantly recognisable in photographs of the event.15 The meeting, which was held as part of the annual Week of Prayer for Christian Unity organised by the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches, was concluded by a service of ecumenical vespers.

One wonders why the long stream of FIEC figures should be so keen to come and speak at Mr Wichary’s conferences in Poland. Why, instead of seeking fellowship with committed ecumenists, do they not seek fellowship with those evangelicals in Poland who cannot and will not join in public acts of worship and outreach with Roman Catholics? – a stance the FIEC itself claimed until recently to represent. Do they not realise that in joining with these practicing ecumenists they have in effect separated themselves from Polish believers who are not associated with RDE because they feel compelled to stand apart from the ecumenical movement? One of the reasons given to one of us by one senior figure in the FIEC to justify coming to these conferences is that in so doing it might be possible to help these people turn from their error. In response to this seemingly plausible argument it has unfortunately to be said that if this is the case, these conference speakers surely have a high opinion of their influence. Has it not occurred to them that disabusing these people of their error has already been tried, and that those who have tried were arguably in a much better position to be able to succeed? Whatever may be the case here, the effectiveness of this help should be evaluated in the light of an article16 in the April 2012 issue of Słowo Prawdy, in which we find that Mr. Wichary’s position has not changed one whit – writing in the context of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches, he states unequivocally that it is his practice to pray for unity in the spirit of the commonly accepted ecumenical understanding of John 17:21. In the meantime the FIEC has now removed its plain and public description of Roman heresy – we are drawn to inquire: who has influenced whom?

Over a decade ago now, three senior figures within the FIEC wrote a series of articles17 in which they set out their views on the question of separation. The description of second- degree separation offered in the first of these articles18 sadly muddies the waters, seeming to caricature not capture the practice of others. While the authors do not, unfortunately, attempt a formal definition of the separation they view as mandatory, they do claim to be

15 http://www.archibial.pl/news.php?id=207

16 http://othertongues.my.proz.com/FIEC/MW.pdf

17 http://www.e-n.org.uk/searchpage.php?term=hyper-separatism

18 http://www.e-n.org.uk/1302-Hyper-separatism-(or-contracting-the-circle).htm following the practice of Martyn Lloyd-Jones. In their third article19 they approvingly quote a comment made about Lloyd-Jones’ position: “He deplored the thinking of Anglican evangelicals who justified deliberate involvement in ecumenism ... but his association and friendship with Anglicans opposed to that thinking remained to the end of his life.” Apparently the authors would have us believe they take the same position. However, it is of crucial importance to note that in these articles these authors present Lloyd-Jones as practising separation from, or at least censure of, evangelicals who justified deliberate involvement in ecumenism, and that the Anglicans with whom he maintained association and friendship were opposed to ecumenism. It is misleading of these authors to claim they are acting in this tradition, when in reality now at least two of them clearly are not – one in the case of Carey Baptist’s missionary, the other in the case of Mr. Wichary.

Of relevance here is the position of the European Missionary Fellowship. The EMF’s supporters will not be aware of this, because they have not been officially informed, but on 2 July 2010 the mission’s Director at the time, Daniel Webber, sent one of us an email containing the following assurances: that there will be “no association and cooperation between members of the EMF and the Evangelical School of Theology in Wrocław,” and that “there will be no formal association and cooperation between members of the EMF and Mr Mateusz Wichary.” This situation was undoubtedly a cause of some embarrassment to the mission, because up to that point its supported workers had been very much involved in the activities of the alliance led by Mr. Wichary. The EMF’s reputation for taking a vigorous theological position and avoiding involvement in the ecumenical movement took a serious knock, as by no means for the first time in the recent history of Polish missions it emerged that missionaries were saying one thing to their supporters and doing quite another thing on the field. Speaking at a personal level, one of us regrets finding it necessary to say that he too was greatly disappointed by the reaction of the senior EMF supported worker with whom he first took up this matter privately, and later by the reaction from England. A subsequent unresolved matter20 and an earlier, related matter21 are described online. The long and the short of the matter is, however, that the EMF has now commendably withdrawn, in Lloyd-Jones-like manner, both from the Hiebertian syncretist missionary and from the practising ecumenist who leads RDE. One is forced to ask why so many senior figures in the FIEC so persistently refuse to follow suit? Is it that their acceptance of men who publicly endorse serious errors of the kind the FIEC had until recently anathematised is

19 http://www.e-n.org.uk/1350-Hyper-separatism-no-way-forward.htm

20 http://www.strateias.org/emf1.htm

21 http://www.strateias.org/sga.htm the result of an assiduous care to avoid the charge of “hyper-separatism”? Let us hope this is the only reason.

The stream of FIEC speakers is set to continue with a visit to Poland in June 2012 by FIEC notable Basil Howlett.22 The document which has replaced the 1996 Statement, Gospel Unity and Ecumenism,23 is claimed to be stronger. Will its provisions be sufficient to produce the acts of love and separation in the Biblical tradition his three colleagues described – steps which Mr. Howlett is duty bound to take both in the case of the missionary he has supported in Poland for decades and in the case of RDE’s leading theologian?

Readers from the FIEC should also note that in inviting a series of FIEC speakers to conferences in Poland, it will not be long before RDE’s leaders will expect their friends to reciprocate. Members of the FIEC should be aware that this can only lead to further tangible downgrade. What form might this take? Will the FIEC’s statement on Gospel Unity and Ecumenism be further modified to accommodate RDE’s own statement on the subject, Jedność i społeczność chrześcijańska24 (Unity and Christian Fellowship), which is so very significantly different from the current British document? Is it in fact the case that the absence of a reference to Roman Catholicism in the FIEC’s new statement is a step preparing the ground to enable cooperation with “evangelical” Catholics, despite their ecclesiastical connections, as practised wholesale by the FIEC-endorsed missionary and in accordance with RDE’s position? Will we see one or more of the staunchly ecumenical lecturers used by RDE25 from the Polish Baptist Union’s theological seminary speaking in the UK, at sessions of the Prepared for Service course, for example, or supplementing the faculty at the Wales Evangelical School of Theology, at which overtly ecumenical associates of theirs have enrolled?26 Will we even see FIEC churches calling Polish pastors who have trained at the unashamedly ecumenical Polish Baptist seminary, bringing with them the openness to Rome they will certainly have imbibed? Or will representatives of RDE bring allusions to Roman Catholicism with them to FIEC conferences, such as elements they have imported into their own practice and worship? Is this an exaggeration? At last year’s RDE June conference, the audience was treated to songs performed by the praise band Promise. Promise are to perform again this year, when Mr. Howlett is to be the main speaker. One of

22 http://www.razemdlaewangelii.pl/aktualnosci/571-konferencja-rde-2012

23 http://www.fiec.org.uk/resources/article/gospel-unity-statement

24 http://www.razemdlaewangelii.pl/images/stories/zalacz/Jednosc_i_spolecznosc_chrzescijanska.pdf

25 http://razemdlaewangelii.pl/aktualnosci/405-konferencja-list-do-tytusa

26 http://www.strateias.org/wroclaw.htm the numbers they performed last year was entitled Niechaj zstąpi Duch Twój.27 The words of this song, written by Roman Catholic Sister Franciszka Godlewska, are immediately recognisable by every Pole as a direct reference to the famous words of a famous pope.28 Call us what you will, we won’t be singing.

27 http://vimeo.com/27030942

28 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNYt_FFxePk HOW DO WE MAINTAIN A SPIRITUAL FRAME OF MIND IN A TIME OF DECLENSION WITHIN THE VISIBLE CHURCH ?

James Clarke, minister of Knock and Point Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)

By nature we are not spiritually minded but have a “carnal mind at enmity against God.” The pattern and predominating direction of our thoughts is changed at conversion. The Spirit gives us spiritual mindedness but indwelling sin is still deceitfully attracted to earthly things. This is a power to distract the mind and to hinder the spirituality of our thoughts. While spiritual mindedness is a grace, it is also a duty, a duty which involves constant prayerful conflict to maintain it. This includes using the means and fixing the mind on the objects which are set forth by God for the spiritual mind to focus on. Faith is strengthened by a daily contemplation of these objects. (Hebrews 11:1). Spiritual mindedness “makes us ready for the cross and all kinds of sufferings; these unseen realities are our comfort 2 Corinthians 4:18” (John Owen).

A spiritual mind will have an appetite for the enjoyment of spiritual realities and wean us from the spurious values and attractions of the world. Our perception of the vanity of our thoughts should humble us. We must also set apart time for meditation on spiritual things. We cannot grow spiritually without taking spiritual food. “ Meditation is properly a mixture of spiritual apprehension of God and heavenly things, in the thoughts and conceptions of the mind, with desires and supplications” (J. Owen). There are difficulties in meditation, but these should not deter us; the resistance of sin to thoughts upon Christ is to be expected. The Spiritual objects for our contemplation do not change, the change must be in us. The Person of Christ is the Centre of all spiritual desires; they derive from Christ and lead to Him, Colossians 3:10,11. We seek the “mind of Christ” (Philippians 2) and to be in agreement with this mind we must be thinking of the same things, and “the more like Him we are, the more we shall enjoy Him.” ALL THE BIBLE!

Terry J. Blackman

I read the Bible little, and so little did I read: Much of the precious Scripture was unknown to me indeed. I liked the shepherd Psalm and loved Isaiah fifty-three, And the fifteenth of Corinthians, though long, it seemed to me; But often made excuses: much too busy, or, too tired, And thus despised the Holy Book by God Himself inspired. But then a thought occurred to me, a thought divine I’m sure: To read the whole of God’s good Word, and not think this a chore. And as I read it more and more, what joy did it afford, To read and feed on every word as spoken by the Lord. The Bible! all the Bible! Yes, each jot and tittle there: By grace I’ll read and learn it all, with reverence and prayer.

Oh Book of heavenly wisdom, full of power and majesty! An endless source of treasure, and a lens by which I see The glory of the Saviour, all the vileness of sin, The meaning of affliction, and the joy of truth within. When reading of the saints and godly patriarchs of old; The holy Tent, the Temple, full of glory, rich in gold; Of God’s ways with the people of the chosen Hebrew line, Of visions so amazing, of great mysteries divine: In every part I find the Spirit’s message is all one - Revealing the Messiah, our Redeemer, God’s dear Son. The Bible! all the Bible! Yes, each jot and tittle there: By grace I’ll read it, every word, with reverence and prayer.

Now first the books of Moses open up their plenteous stores, And show to us our origin, with types and righteous laws. In Joshua comes the conquest of the promised land of rest, The war and strife of Judges, and then Ruth - how sweet and blessed! The books of Samuel give the reigns of Saul and Jesse’s son; The First of Kings: the peaceful times of prudent Solomon. Then reading on in Kings we find that some kings were quite just, While others did no good, for molten idols were their trust. The Chronicles begin anew with Adam, the first man, And trace the sacred history till captivity began. The Bible! all the Bible! Yes, each jot and tittle there: By grace I’ll read it, day by day, with reverence and prayer.

In Ezra and Nehemiah the holy city is reclaimed, While Esther shows God’s ceaseless care, although He is not named. In Job we see God’s will is best e’en in the darkest days, The Psalms are full of heartfelt prayers and joyful songs of praise. Then Proverbs and Ecclesiastes godly fear impart, And Song of Songs reveals the love which fills our Bridegroom's heart. Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, Daniel too, And twelve more “Minor Prophets,” show the great things God will do, And speak of the Messiah divine, of Whom we’ll read much more In those New Covenant Scriptures which await us on before: The Bible! all the Bible! Yes, each jot and tittle there: By grace I’ll read it carefully, with reverence and prayer.

Four Gospels tell our hearts about our Saviour Jesus Christ, One who was perfect, and in love for us was sacrificed; How, risen and ascended now, He still is just the same, And says to all His followers, “Go forth: My word proclaim”! In Acts the apostolic band their Master’s Word make known, And meet with love the hatred which so oft to them is shown. The Epistles then so richly God’s most precious thoughts display, To expound the Christian teaching, and to guide the Christian’s way. The Revelation then concludes the wondrous Book of God: Christ, glorified in heaven and earth, rules nations with a rod. The Bible! all the Bible! Yes, each jot and tittle there: By grace I’ll read it o’er again, with reverence and prayer.

Oh my dear fellow-Christian, please allow me to say this, With earnestness, entreaties, and with holy emphasis: Don’t just read favourite portions, for it is the Word of God, And we’re His much loved children, all redeemed with precious blood. This Book is from our Father, God, its theme is His dear Son, And by the Spirit every word’s inspired, yes, every one. Oh you, who know and love the truth, God’s words do not neglect: From every part, yes every part, a blessing true expect. So give much time to God’s dear Book, (your mind for this was made), Your life will be more holy, and your heart no more afraid. The Bible! all the Bible! Yes, each jot and tittle there: Oh let us read it, through and through, with reverence and prayer! A PUBLICATION FOR OUR TIME

J.P. Thackway

An extended review of

THEY HAVE FORGOTTEN ... An urgent plea for evangelicals to recognise the danger of the Ecumenical Movement and remember the stand that the British Evangelical Council and Dr. Martyn Lloyd- Jones took against it.

By R.E. Palgrave. Unity in Truth Literature, booklet, 41 pages, £1. Obtainable from Unity in Truth Literature, PO Box 4357, Cardiff CF14 8HY.

Sometimes, a new publication appears that breaks the mould of the ordinary and predictable. Such literature is rare in our day. Christians tend to write on safe and acceptable subjects. Authors who do this will be read with approval and credibility. However, let someone touch the areas of say, worship, or separation from errorists, and our evangelical politically correct climate breaks into a storm. Those who write forthrightly on these matters find themselves accused of an uncharitable spirit and being “divisive.”

Category

The booklet mentioned above fits into this category. Not because Ruth Palgrave is an uncharitable or divisive person – she is quite the reverse of these - but because she dares to raise a matter that many would rather see quietly laid aside. The booklet’s message is that the present generation of evangelical/reformed Christians have largely forgotten something historic and epoch-making. I refer to the convictions concerning separation from ecumenism that shaped our forefather’s actions until recently. To read or listen to many these days, one would think that such convictions relate to an outdated and outmoded concern. Certainly, Professor Donald Macleod thinks so, in the piece we covered last time. And many others, while not so blatant, yet believe there are things that are more important now.

Criticism

The booklet and its author have already come in for the expected criticism, both privately and publicly, and probably more will come. However, we hope that others will be more discerning and prepared to take seriously what is said. In this extended appreciation, I would like to highlight some of the issues raised and commend the booklet’s message to our readers, and to all who will consider these things. This magazine has already covered a number of aspects dealt with here by Miss Palgrave because it is in line with the Bible League’s own witness. However, it is a great encouragement to see such a succinct and well- researched treatment that calls us to think and act biblically in the light of the onward march of the ecumenical apostasy.

Introduction

The booklet begins with an Introduction giving a brief history of the British Evangelical Council (BEC). It reminds us of that body’s stand against ecumenism - and for true spiritual unity based on faithfulness to biblical truth, and the corollary of separation from the Ecumenical Movement (EM). This stand was necessary, not only because God’s word requires it (Romans 16:17; 2 John verses 9-11), but in order to maintain a clear testimony to what the gospel is and what a true church is. While embracing all who love Christ and the gospel, it had to exclude from its membership those who, while professedly evangelical, nonetheless chose to remain affiliated to doctrinally mixed churches and denominations. This separation was officially at church level, not necessarily at a personal level. Foremost among the BEC’s representatives back then were Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones and its General Secretary until 1982, Rev. Roland Lamb.

Dr. Lloyd-Jones

The first chapter documents the witness of Dr. Lloyd-Jones, a discerning and far-seeing leader whom God raised up for the times. His anointed preaching during the 1960s onwards clarified these issues. Through his leadership in the 1960s and 1970s, the BEC became, for evangelicals, the counterpart to the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the church fellowship of those days the counterpart to the EM. Believers knew where they stood concerning the gospel, what a Christian is, and what a Christian church is. These were the issues at stake, and were faithfully contended for against the Church of Rome, liberalism, and false ecclesiastical unity.

New Evangelicalism

The six pages of Chapter 2 give an incisive little history of the rise of New Evangelicalism during the 1940s in the USA. That movement repudiated separation from liberals and from the social gospel. It led to theological seminaries and churches being involved with enemies of truth up to their necks. E.J. Poole-Connor, founder of the FIEC, declared, “The ‘New Evangelicalism’ that had arisen was a departure from the old. It stood for ‘infiltration’ and not ‘separation.’” Tragically, infiltration developed into participation and ultimately imitation. It came to the UK via the Billy Graham evangelistic rallies and his accepting the sponsorship of liberals and apostates. Thus, the issue of separation became clouded by the pressing concerns of evangelism. The rise of New Evangelicalism was followed in 1948 by the founding of the WCC – a date surely not unrelated to what preceded it.

Three chapters

The following three chapters – The Ecumenical Movement and the WCC, The attitude of Dr. Lloyd-Jones and the BEC towards it, and The Scriptural necessity for believers and the BEC to separate from the WCC and apostate denominations and organisations – complete what is really the first half of the booklet. These pages leave us in no doubt about the apostasy of the EM, and the impossibility of professed evangelicals being involved with it. Dr. Lloyd- Jones’ trenchant phrase “guilt by association” was criticised even back in 1967 by some, but far from retracting it he was to assert by 1974 that what he saw as implicit then was now explicit. More testimonies from Christian leaders follow, together with supporting scriptures, to show that the duty of separation from errorists is as clear as the duty to separate from sin.

The facts here are undeniable, except for those who wish to re-write this history. That later writers have engaged in historical revisionism is documented in one of the articles mentioned earlier, the July-September 2001 issue of the Bible League Quarterly and also Sword & Trowel 2000 No 2.

Second half

The second half of the booklet covers Chapters 6-9. Here, the author shows that BEC’s successor – Affinity – does not stand in the same clear-cut separatist tradition. Looking back, this outcome is traceable in part to the loss of Dr. Lloyd-Jones in 1981. As soon as 1984, respected leaders like T. Omri Jenkins were warning about a weakening and drifting among evangelicals. The firm stance against ecumenism, once so evident, was giving way to an alarming passion for evangelical unity that was prepared to widen the parameters of fellowship.

The short-lived Essentially Evangelical morphed into Affinity in 2004. The new body opened its doors to member churches belonging to the WCC, namely the United Reformed Church and the Baptist Union, also to those wedded to the Church of England. This would have been unthinkable in the old BEC days, unless the ministers concerned were intending to bring their people out of such affiliations. Moreover, it meant that member churches of BEC found themselves by default belonging to Affinity - as “Gospel Churches in Partnership” with these ecumenical denominations. An embarrassing and dismaying fait accompli.

Affinity claims to “continue the work of the British Evangelical Council.” This sounds reassuring, but surely if this were the case one would expect it to carry the BEC’s Official Statement: Attitude to Ecumenicity on its web site, but it does not. This is surely to play down its BEC roots. Affinity’s own statement on ecumenicity includes the following,

The biblical Gospel defines the boundaries of true Christian fellowship. Affinity churches, with real sadness, cannot enter into Gospel partnership with churches which deny the fundamental Bible doctrines set out in the Affinity doctrinal basis.

In theory, the doctrinal basis could be as restrictive as is claimed in the above paragraph. However, in practice, this is clearly not happening and will not happen. One need only cite again the admission of a United Reformed Church (a member of the WCC and of Churches Together in Britain and Ireland) as an Independent Corporate Partner. Affinity’s non- mention of the evils of the EM and WCC has made this wider connection possible, giving the impression that the old battle lines are no longer important.

Also, perhaps, for this reason individuals are assessing the current situation too sanguinely, forgetting (as the booklet says) the real issues lie behind it. One writer on his blog does this, and gently chides Miss Palgrave for her unfairness to Affinity. The writer then makes the astonishing claim concerning Affinity’s above-mentioned position on ecumenicity,

These statements clearly lay out Affinity’s position as non-ecumenical. Member churches that are actively involved with the ‘Churches Together’ movement would clearly be in breach of them.

Yet, as we have seen, Affinity has a URC church as a partner – a denomination that is part of Churches Together! Also, see the article elsewhere in this magazine, where an FIEC church (which belongs to Affinity) supports a missionary who “... in his own words for years ‘started Catholic fellowships’ in Poland, a longstanding faculty member of a seminary that proudly styles itself a ‘promoter of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue.’” Clearly, what is claimed and what is done are two different things. It is sometimes said that BEC became Affinity because the former had stagnated or had become irrelevant. That a noble Christian body can become so over time is not disputed. However, if it is to have new life and be re-branded, as claimed, into a “re-invigorated, re- focussed and re-presented BEC,” then we look for continuity regarding its founding principles and practices. However, when we compare the rather muted and careful wording of Affinity with the robust, clearly spelled out terms of the BEC’s Official Statement, we are in a different world. We suspect more was behind Affinity than the desire for a new image. It was also to create a new BEC more accommodating and inclusive than its predecessor would allow. In other words, as the booklet claims, “They have forgotten...”

Conclusion

The booklet’s Conclusion on page 34 rightly acknowledges the true unity that exists among churches throughout the UK and the world that are separatist yet together in the love of the truth. Such churches continue the work of the BEC and have not forgotten the clear and rugged witness of their forefathers in the faith. Let us never forget this either, and seek to be their worthy successors. Only then shall we be faithfully serve our generation by the will of God (Acts 13:26). We thank Ruth Palgrave for such an excellent publication and warmly commend it to all our readers. GOD’S GOOD HAND

Thomas Taylor DD (1576–1633)

I ALL AFFLICTIONS ARE GOD’S HAND.

1. They are from God’s hand purposing and ordaining them (Romans 8:29; 1 Thessalonians 3:3).

2. They are from God’s hand executing them (Isaiah 45:7; Genesis 45:8; Job 1:21; 2 Samuel 16:11; Hosea 6:1).

3. They are from God’s hand ordering and disposing them.

(1) In their causes, circumstances, kinds, manner, etc.

(2) In their ends and issues, His own glory, in manifesting His mercy, justice, wisdom, power, etc. The everlasting salvation of His children. He stops them in their course of sin, as with a hedge of thorns (Hosea 2:6), that they should not break over into the pleasant pastures of sin, therein to be fatted to the slaughter. He brings them to a true hatred of sin, when they taste the bitter fruit of it. To the exercise of mortification, and desire of heaven and heavenly things: and thus they are judged of the Lord, that they may not be condemned with the world.

II. GOD LAYS HIS HAND HEAVILY OFTEN UPON HIS OWN DEAR CHILDREN.

1. There is deep corruption lurking in the best. They are not seldom are cast upon so deep a sleep of security that they cannot be wakened with a little shaking, till by most grievous afflictions the Lord break their bones, consume their strength, and bring them into such grief and pain as sets them roaring.

2. Smaller troubles have often a smaller work. Small things cannot make great hearts stoop; a small fire will not purge away dross from gold, but it must be quick and piercing; a small wind doth not fan away the chaff of vanity, a small correction or smart makes the child more froward, till sounder correction subdue him; small trials do not so exercise faith, nor send men out of themselves to God: for as none for the scratch of a pin, or a little headache, will seek to the physician or surgeon; so a sinner in smaller grievances of the soul will scarce think he needs go to God (Job 33:14).

3. The greater the affliction is, the more odious doth sin appear to be unto God. A strong poison must have a strong antidote: the more the godly are stricken down for sin, the more are they stirred up to godly sorrow, to hatred of it, to zeal against it, the better and more watchful do they prevent sin to come, and look better to themselves: as a good physician oftentimes letteth blood, not to make a man sick, but to prevent sickness.

4. The greater the trial is, the better experience have they of themselves.

5. God’s children have great afflictions, and are pressed with an heavy hand, that God Himself may be clearly seen to be their deliverer, when in the eyes of all flesh they are lost.

6. As great afflictions make way for abundant mercy from God to us, so also for abundant thanks from us to God. If one cure a trifling matter, it neither so binds the patient, nor yet commends the physician: but if any be cured of some deadly, and almost incurable disease, then we profess we could never have met with such a physician in all the world again, and we are accordingly thankful.

7. Were it not for great afflictions, we could never know the power of God’s Word in quickening us, cheering and comforting us in them, that it is the Word of Life, is most evidently seen in Death itself.

III. GOD LAYS HIS HEAVY HAND UPON HIS CHILDREN A LONG TIME, AND WITH MUCH CONTINUANCE.

1. Sometimes God’s children in their falls harden their hearts, and grow stiff in their sin, which was David’s case (Psalm 32), and then the Lord hardeneth Himself to grow stiff in displeasure. Oftentimes God’s children would sit silent, if the Lord would be as silent as they: but whom He loves, He will bring back the way that they are gone, and great hearts will not stoop for a little.

2. Christ hath not taken away the lingering of trials, but the malignity and poison of them; yea, Himself through all His life was a man full of sorrows; and we must not look to be better; He deserved them not, we have. 3. God would have us in the continuance of our trouble, to see the continuance of our sin. Were our correction always short, we would not be persuaded of the greatness of our sins: plasters use to continue, and not fall off till the wound be cured.; and if a right use of afflictions were attained once, a joyful issue would soon follow: but some lust is not denied, and that adds a sting unto them.

4. God by the continuance of His hand would hold us in a continual exercise of grace, as of humility, faith, patience, prayer, repentance, etc. It being with a godly man, as one that hath a precious jewel, which he is careful to keep in his hand, so long as he watcheth, none can get it from him; but when he sleeps or slumbers, his hand opens, and it falls out, any man may have it. By continual blowing, the fire is kept in, but it dies by discontinuance. BOOK REVIEWS

A STRING OF PEARLS or The Best Things Reserved Till Last by Thomas Brooks. Works, Volume One, pages 399 to 467. The Banner of Truth Trust. Price for single volume: £15.00 or the whole set of six: £83.00.

Born in 1608, Thomas Brooks (TB) was ordained in 1640 and served as chaplain at sea. Later he became a minister in London until 1662 when he was ejected from his living. Despite this, he continued to preach and later ministered to another congregation in London, this time at Moorfields. He died in 1680. As an able preacher of the Word, TB could also write spiritual truth in a simple effective and way. Many believers read his books in his day and it is not hard to see why, for over 350 years later he still has great appeal.

A String of Pearls is based on 1 Peter 1:4, “to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you.” After a brief introduction concerning the text, TB draws out the comforting and assuring doctrine, “That God reserves the best and greatest favours and blessings for believers till they come to heaven.” This remains the theme throughout the book (which began life as a sermon) and the author proceeds to develop it in a number of ways.

First, he speaks about the nature of the heavenly inheritance and that it is like a precious stone which cannot be soiled, blemished or defiled. It is also kept secure, sure, permanent and is like a flower which is still fresh even after a long period of time. Such an eternal legacy is free, goes to every believer and is a “soul satisfying inheritance” (page 413).

Second, God's celestial and eternal rest is reserved for Christians in heaven and exceeds any rest that the earth can provide. In that blessed place this uninterrupted rest will be free from all sorrow and sin, and be a permanent state. Three, the best sight and knowledge of God is being kept for heaven and this will be full, immediate, permanent and constant. Four, the finest of God’s presence is reserved until the last, and will eternally satisfy the soul. Five, the perfection of grace is set aside in heaven and with it, a fullness of pure and never-ending joy.

Six, God keeps the best company until the very end. In glory “we shall be citizens of heaven, fellows of angels, co-heirs with Christ, citizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (page 427). Seven, the glorification of the saints’ bodies will not happen until the last day. At that time they shall be raised in glory and have a body like Christ’s glorious one. Why does God keep His people waiting for the best? TB advances reasons that are all equally valid and makes the Lord’s goodwill and pleasure the first of these. Another is that the hearts of the saints are kept in a longing and waiting frame, for the longer we wait for something the better the thing is to us.

He concludes this section with two observations, the first being that the bodies of believers cannot bear these best things yet. Secondly, they are spiritually “under age” at present and therefore must wait until they arrive in heaven to enjoy the fullness of divine blessings. Typical of the Puritans, TB gives a goodly amount of “uses and application,” and they cover twelve points, with a page to each. Every one of these could safely make the basis of a sermon but suffice it here to mention that believers have their “best things” to come in heaven. Unbelievers, however, have their heaven here and then the worst is to come in hell, see Lk 16:22-25.

Next, the author advances twenty reasons why the Christian believer should be willing to die when God decrees. All of these thrill the heart, and note this quotation: “That is not death, but life, that joins the dying man to Christ; and that is not life, but death, that separates the living man from Christ” (page 451). Consider too: a believer’s dying day is his best day, because it is a resting, reaping, triumphing and marriage day. There is much more but space limits further comments. Prayerfully reading through this whole list can help dispel a great deal of the fear of death, and therefore it is so good to be immersed in these truths.

Finally, the author closes his book by giving some attention to the matter of any being unwilling to die. This he says “usually springs from those low and dark apprehensions men have of God, and from weakness of faith, and from coldness of love, and from laying the creatures too near our hearts, and from our little communion with God, and our rare taking of turns in paradise, and from our not treasuring up a stock of promises, and a stock of experiences, etc.” (page 463). Lack of assurance is often advanced as the reason for being unwilling to die but, as TB says, it is usually at death that God gives His children “the sweetest and fullest assurance of His love, of their interest in Him, and of their right to glory” (page 464). So it is that the worst days for Christians can be here, but the best are yet to come in heaven and this comforts the heart against all “outward abasements from the malignant world” (page 466). Like the rest of TB’s writings, this volume is worth every pound and penny! WHAT IS A REFORMED CHURCH? Malcolm H. Watts. Reformation Heritage Books. 164 pages, paperback, £8.20. Available from Tabernacle Bookshop, London (http:// www.tabernaclebookshop.org) for £6.50.

This book owes its origins to a number of conference addresses given in Australia by the author (MHW). Now edited and revised for publication, it has a lively style and is far from being a dry and dusty academic treatise. There are 7 chapters comprising of 20 to 30 pages each and they cover all the important aspects of the subject. Being an RHB publication, readers should note that American spelling has been used throughout, although this is not over intrusive.

MHW begins by presenting a short biblical definition of a Reformed church from 1 Timothy 3:15, described as “the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” and a place where God dwells (page 1). The first 3 chapters cover vital matters and ought not to be hurried over. In some ways they are the most important parts of the book, for a failure to grasp the truths inculcated will set the reader on a wrong course for what follows.

Chapter 1 lays out the distinctives of a Reformed church and includes such principles as Scripture alone and the recognition of divine sovereignty, majesty and glory. Quoting Warfield, the author says, “It is the vision of God and His majesty, in a word, which lies at the foundation of the entirety of Calvinistic thinking ... “(page 10). The man or woman who has seen something of God and His glory is led to a sense of unworthiness and yet adores God that He receives sinners. Following on from that, MHW’s section entitled, “The Scriptures’ Expression of God” is a fine treatment of God’s Being, nature, sovereignty and omnipotence. From all these flow true and reverent worship, which is conducted in a godly fear, with believers knowing that they are in the presence of Jehovah God.

Other distinctives are mentioned such as a proclamation of the way of salvation as “plainly set forth in the doctrines of free, sovereign, and distinguishing grace” (page 14). In addition, further truths are emphasised such as God’s Covenant of Grace, the necessity of proclaiming the Gospel, and then a life wholly consecrated to God. No dead and arid orthodoxy is being advocated in these pages and the next two chapters underline this. The second chapter rightly highlights the great emphasis of the Reformed faith as being the sovereignty of God exemplified in 1 Timothy 6:15, “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” Then follows a study in what the Bible teaches about God's supremacy and how it is displayed, especially in the salvation of sinners. Such teaching ought to have a powerful effect upon Christian believers as they worship with reverence, submit to God’s authority, reach out to the elect, have fellowship with the saints and exercise love towards them, are content with divine providence and hope in the promises of God.

Chapter 3 entitled “A Right View of Worship” (page 46) presents the biblical rationale for what can be referred to as a “godly order of worship.” For many this may well be the most challenging part of the whole volume and it is certainly pertinent to the present state of the church. Let these pages (46 to 59) be well scrutinised, studied and applied and there will be major changes for the better in many assemblies of God's people. Whether deliberate or unintentional, there appears to be general confusion in the minds of believers as to the Old and New Testament principles governing worship. MHW carefully distinguishes between the two, showing how Christ has set aside the shadows and figures of the OT in favour of new laws and ordinances of worship. The Lord has given “precise instructions regarding every part of new covenant spiritual worship” (page 54) and this can be learned from such references as Hebrews 3:2 and Matthew 17:5.

Pages 54 to 59 provide very important principles here. Oh that every minister, elder and church member might imbibe them! The application to modern “innovative worship” (page 57) is readily made and a warning delivered to beware of “will worship” (Colossians 2:23). This is worship that is devised by man’s ingenuity and does not flow from the heart and decree of God.

The next two chapters (4 and 5) take up the themes of church government and discipline. Scripture does teach how churches ought to be governed and this has not been left to the wisdom and wit of man to devise and work out. Basic principles of caring for Christ’s body must include His total headship and sole establishment of spiritual rule (page 61-67). Such power has only been given to some in the congregation and not all and is meant to have a continuance throughout the life of God’s people on earth. The Church needs biblical officers and these are provided for the “well-being” of Christ’s flock even if they are not essential for its actual existence.

In dealing with the matter of elders, the various terms of presbyter, bishop, etc. are discussed and careful distinction is made between teaching and ruling elders. Pages 72-82 provide details of the responsibilities and godly character of ministers and “ruling elders.” These are vital if churches are to know the blessing of the Lord.

Chapter 5 takes up the necessity of church discipline, which is essentially “education for heaven.” There are two aspects to this and they are preventative discipline and the corrective kind. As with all the other chapters, there is thorough analysis of the Bible’s teaching and counsel on the subject and how to implement them.

Something of a myth has grown up over the years that Reformed churches do not believe in Gospel preaching and “evangelism.” However, the author stresses in chapter 6 under the title of “Reformed Evangelism,” that historically reformed churches have had “a deep passion for the souls of men” and a strong desire to spread the Gospel (page l08). This assertion is supported with reference to a number of factual examples and to these many others could be added. More importantly, MHW turns to the Scriptures and establishes that it is certainly the responsibility and duty of churches to preach the Gospel to all men. At no time do the doctrines of “free grace” prevent such an earnest proclamation, as the writer makes very clear.

Chapter 7 makes a fitting conclusion to the whole book and is called, “Maintaining the Reformed Faith” (pages 133-155). The call is to be valiant and courageous for the truth knowing that God’s Word will ultimately triumph despite the setbacks of the enemy (pages 154,155).

Meanwhile, practical counsel is given to ministers and people so that they uphold that glorious and blessed faith of the Gospel and continue in it. We are very grateful to RHB and Dr. Beeke for publishing this work and may we ask here, that perhaps it will not be too long before there are other titles by the same author made available to the Christian public?

THE LORD’S SUPPER. Thomas Watson. Puritan Paperbacks. The Banner of Truth Trust, 86 pages, £4.50.

Many readers will be acquainted with Thomas Watson (TW) and his other works (e.g. the Body of Divinity and his exposition of the Commandments, Beatitudes, Lord’s Prayer, etc.). These, God willing, might be reviewed in these pages in order to bring them to the attention of a younger generation of readers. Perhaps this little gem of a book ought to be read by many more and thus make their attendance at the Lord’s Supper a greater blessing?

TW (c. 1620-1686) was Yorkshire-born and after studies at Emmanuel College, Cambridge became a minister in London. Ejected from his living in 1662 he continued to preach in private places until the Act of Indulgence (1672). After this he was able to preach in public buildings in London until ill health forced retirement. He was a greatly loved preacher and writer in his day and even now he ranks as one of the most popular Puritan writers amongst readers.

“The Lord's Supper” was first published in 1665 under the title of “The Holy Eucharist, or the Mystery of the Lord’s Supper Briefly Explained.” It is a comparatively small work yet worthy to stand alongside the other writings of TW. The spirit of it is introduced to the reader at the beginning when the author writes of the Supper that it is “both a healing and sealing ordinance. Here our Saviour leads His people up the Mount of Transfiguration, and gives them a glimpse of paradise.” Again he says that there is a need to draw near with the heart and not just with outward conformity. “They who give God only the skin of duty shall carry away only the shell of comfort” (see the Epistle to the Reader).

There are eleven chapters and none of them are over long. In that connection, it is a useful book for young and old as they come to the Supper. In chapter one the author calls the sacrament a visible sermon. The Word he says, “is a trumpet to proclaim Christ, the sacrament is a glass to represent him.” Furthermore, it confirms faith and builds up believers in Christ. By it they are given a visible sign to help and increase assurance. TW answers two extremes in chapters 2 and 3 by making it clear that believers receive Christ spiritually into their hearts in this service. The doctrine of transubstantiation he describes as “both absurd and impious” (page 17), but at the same time, he is not happy to see the Supper portrayed as only “an empty figure or shadow” (page 18). He reminds his readers that the Lord’s Supper is the “communion of the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:16) and in it they are provided with a “taste of Christ, as well as a sight” (page 19).

Everywhere that a Christian looks in the Supper he sees Christ’s love displayed (chapter 4). “When we were fighting, He was dying,” asserts TW, and “when we had the weapons in our hands, then He had the spear in his side” (Romans 5:8). Such love as this is not just until death but afterwards and into eternity (page 25). Christ’s body broken in the Supper reveals the horror and evil of sin (page 28) and also helps to soften hard hearts, make Christ precious and show Him to be food and healing for the soul (pages 28-31). The blood of Christ represented in the fruit of the vine reveals similar truths, TW writes. Therefore the Saviour’s blood should be highly valued and prized for it cleanses from sin, heals the conscience and opens up heaven, see chapter 6 and pages 33-38.

The matter of self-examination before coming to the Supper is taken up in chapter 7. “The heart must first be prepared, and put in tune before it goes to meet with God in this solemn ordinance of the sacrament” (page 39). As ever, this examining of the heart must be done with reference to God’s Word and TW provides 7 ways to prepare for coming to the Supper. They include searching the soul, seriousness, reverence, longing and penitent hearts, sincerity and fired with love to Christ (pages 40-47). Closely connected with this is the theme of true and false faith as spoken of in chapter 8. A genuine and humble one is necessary in order to feed upon the Lord in the Supper and to have Him as the sole object of believing. See page 48 to the end of the chapter.

As a worthy pastor, TW would have met with those who introduced reasons for not coming to the Supper and these he sought to answer in chapter 9. They range from those who feel sinful and unworthy to not finding any spiritual fruit, comfort or blessing in it. AB with many of the Puritans there is practical and wise teaching and several encouragements. Chapter 10 takes up the theme of thankfulness and love to the Lord. Nothing must be done out of mere love but with a grateful heart and TW gives four ways in which this can be shown. All is applicable to the whole of the Christian life but of course is directly linked to the Supper.

Finally in chapter 11, the Lord’s Supper is to be a means of encouraging heavenly words and living. At the same time it provides comfort for the saints as they travel through this world. Yet it also warns unrepentant sinners to consider their ways. “Christ who is a lodestone to draw the elect to heaven, will be a millstone to sink the wicked deeper into hell” (page 86). Many books have been written on the Lord’s Supper, but this present one under review deserves prayerful reading by God's people for its stimulating and helpful writing.

Brian Garrard