Wake up and smell the coffee

With the successful prosecution of yet another Christian B&B owner over her refusal to give a double room to a gay couple, it's time for Christians in the UK to wake up and smell the coffee, because if same-sex marriage becomes a reality, this will only be the start. Sadly, it's the BNP who have taken up the case and who are campaigning for the "rights of all home owners, gays included, to rent or not rent rooms to whomsoever they wish". The problem is a law which was passed a few years ago and which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation, however laws are not set in stone - they can, and in this case should, be changed. As Christians we need to be challenging legislation which goes against our religious convictions, or at least arguing for a freedom of conscience clause. It is just not acceptable for us to be told that we should find another job or business if we can't comply with equalities legislation. Christian B&B owners have had 'married couples only' policies for their double rooms for a lot longer than the equalities act has been in place. It's hard not to feel that the legislation is being used as a stick to beat Christians with. That said, if we don't make our feelings known to politicians, it's our own fault if they pass laws which discriminate against us.

The church is the people

Sadly, recent events regarding St George's Tron in Glasgow (the church where I was christened by Rev Tom Allan) clearly demonstrate the Church of Scotland's determination to continue its dog in the manger attitude towards congregations which wish to secede. Presumably they hope to send out a clear message to the likes of Holyrood Abbey in Edinburgh, which has recently undergone a similar refurbishment paid for in large part by the congregation. I can only hope that Holyrood, Gilcomston and others send a clear message back to 121 - get back to the Bible or we're off. It is not now just a matter of the denomination's stance on homosexuality which is the problem - it is also the petty, spiteful way in which Presbyteries are acting towards congregations who reject the way the denomination is heading and who want to remain faithful to God's word. Rev David Robertson of the Free Church challenges us, both inside and outside the Church of Scotland, not to sit on the fence. I stand with my brothers and sisters who have been evicted from the Tron and I pray that their witness in Glasgow city centre will continue. The church is the people, not the building.

Here is the church
Here's the steeple
Open the doors
Look - no people!
(from an old children's action rhyme - adapted to suit Glasgow Presbytery)

Great is thy faithfulness

Why, oh why, do some churches feel that they have to modernise everything in order to appeal to people? I am not a die-hard traditionalist however I also do not believe that the decline in church attendance has been caused purely by the use of old-fashioned English and can be reversed simply by replacing all instances of 'thee' and 'thou' in our prayers, worship and bible readings by 'you'. Such language was already out of date when I was a child but that didn't stop me from understanding what was meant, at least most of the time. It also didn't stop me from becoming a Christian.

The English of the King James Version, although beautiful, can be impenetrable and so I personally use the NIV for Bible study. Being of a certain age (ie over 50) I do, however, prefer to keep the old language of 'Our Father' which I learnt as a child and I really, really object when people try and modernise the words of favourite old hymns. Do we modernise Shakespeare? Do we update John Donne? Or Chaucer? Hymns are poetry set to music. When you alter the words you spoil them. Churches which do this also run the risk of alienating older people who know many old hymns off by heart and who become confused when the words are changed. Such relentless modernisation makes me feel that old people are being forgotten when it comes to evangelisation. Everything is aimed at the younger generation and yet pensioners have an even more urgent need to hear the gospel because their time is short.

The vast majority of the over-50s in this country grew up with the King James Version and the Church of Scotland Hymnary 2nd Edition with the Scottish Psalter. That is what they are familiar with. It therefore makes sense that that is what churches should use if they want to reach the over-50s. You have only to look at the faces of the residents in an old-folks' home when old hymns are being sung to see how much they enjoy them. I'm not saying that we can't have modern songs. I'm just saying that we should have a mixture of both old and new and that we shouldn't try and update the old favourites. "Great is your faithfulness" just doesn't sound right any more than "wherefore are you Romeo".

The problem of feelings-based legislation

I have already talked in an earlier post about the dangers of relying on feelings when it comes to interpreting God's Word. I am also very concerned about the current tendency for individuals and groups to press for changes in legislation based on feelings. No-one who watched Tony Nicklinson on TV could fail to have been affected emotionally by his struggles, however that does not mean that we should change the law to allow someone to kill a person in Mr Nicklinson's position with impunity. Thankfully the judges in the case decided that they were not able to change the law. The problem is that politicians are, and they are being actively lobbied by the pro-euthanasia groups both at Westminster and Holyrood. I have said before that we cannot impose Christian values on society however that does not mean that we can't encourage society, by all methods at our disposal, to live according to God's law, thereby protecting the weak and the vulnerable. Having rejected both the Judeo-Christian tradition, and the Greek tradition of rational thought, our nation is now floundering on a sea of emotionalism. As Christians we need to be throwing it the lifebelt of God's word to bring it to safety on the rock which is Christ.

Watered-down christianity doesn't work

There is a school of thought that says that we should back-pedal on the harder teachings of Christianity in order not to scare away seekers or new christians. The theory goes that it is better to get and keep such people in the church, where they can hear a (watered-down) gospel rather than frighten them off. What rot. If anyone has any lingering doubt that such a philosophy works, they have only to look at the experience of seeker-friendly Willow Creek. The results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry reveal that most of what they have been doing for these many years, and what they have taught millions of others to do, is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples.

I think people need to know exactly what they are committing themselves to before they make a decision to follow Christ. "Small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and few find it." (Matt 7:14) "He who puts his hand to the plough and then looks back is not fit for service in the kingdom of God." (Luke 9:62) Better a few really committed christians who understand what it is all about than a load of wishy-washy touchy-feely felt-led sort-of christians who still have one foot in the world and who will probably run away at the first sign of persecution or hardship. In the meantime, they are infecting our churches with their worldly views on everything from homosexuality to new age therapies. That is why the church in Scotland (and the Church of Scotland in particular) is in such a mess. Preaching a watered-down gospel just doesn't work.

When the rich young man came to Jesus and asked what he must do to inherit eternal life, did Jesus make it easy for him? No, he didn't, even although Mark's gospel tells us that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). Actually, Jesus asked the young man to do the same as he'd asked the other disciples to do - leave everything and follow him. The result was a failure, in the world's eyes, but why should Jesus have asked anything less of this particular would-be follower? Would we really expect Jesus to make an exception just because someone was rich? The way to eternal life is the same for everyone - through faith in Christ. The cost is everything we have. There are no shortcuts, no easy way, no privileged path. It's a pity Pilgrim's Progress is not more widely read these days.

Yes, it is harder for those who have a lot invested in the world to become christians (Mark 10:23). Sometimes they need to lose their wordly wealth before they will turn to Christ. Our job is not to make it easy for them but to preach the gospel, omitting nothing. To do otherwise is dishonest and unfair.

What's in a name?

I heard a sermon recently in which the preacher mentioned emergent and emerging churches. In his view, the former was bad, having gone off the rails theologically, but the latter was OK, being just churches looking for a way to be culturally relevant. Leaving aside, for the moment, the whole minefield of cultural relevance, making such a distinction between 'emergent' and 'emerging' is rather dangerous. A quick check of Wikipedia shows that there is no consensus about what those terms actually mean. Indeed, many commentators on today's churches use the terms interchangeably, including Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries. It seems that the term 'emergent' started with Brian McLaren's Emergent Village and some still use it to refer to that, with 'emerging' referring to a wider, more diverse movement which would include the likes of Rob Bell, Mark Driscoll, Doug Pagitt and Dan Kimball, however there is a considerable amount of overlap and confusion about the terms, making the assertion of the preacher, which I mentioned at the start, open to misinterpretation.

The attempt to be culturally relevant has led many churches off the straight and narrow path and onto the broad highway which leads to hell. Maybe not all emerging churches are on that road but a lot are, with their emphasis on conversation, inclusion, generous orthodoxy, interfaith dialogue and mysticism. The christian who wants to stay faithful to God's word would do well to avoid such churches, where experience is elevated over scripture. That is not to say that I am against all things modern - I read the NIV and I don't use King James English to pray. What the emerging church movement is doing goes well beyond simply updating the language they use to worship God and communicate the gospel to others. If your church is getting involved in any of the following, it may be time to leave:
(this list is not exhaustive)
Worship services that are more like a disco than a church service.
Promotion of contemplative prayer/lectio divina/teachings of the 'desert fathers'.
Use of labyrinths.
Use of The Message instead of a more reliable bible version eg NIV, NASB, KJV.
Elevation of experience over Scripture.
The Toronto blessing/soaking prayer.
Angelic manifestations.
Teaching and use of techniques for healing, rather than dependence on the Holy Spirit.
Ecumenical/interfaith services.
Vision casting/visualisation.
Over-emphasis on the demonic or prophetic.
Purpose driven/seeker friendly.
Ignoring hard teachings in order not to offend or scare away non-christians.

On running the race

Last night at Bible Study we looked at Hebrews 12. It starts with that wonderful verse 'Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.' Not the race that we have chosen - the one marked out for us. For one christian friend today that race is coping with the death of her husband in an accident just weeks before they were due to share retirement together. For another, it is struggling with secondary cancer when just months ago she had been given the all-clear. There are times when you just have to keep putting one foot in front of the other (metaphorically speaking). That's perseverance.

There is some debate as to who wrote the book of Hebrews but my money is on the Apostle Paul. He knew about both hardship and perseverance. He finished the race and kept the faith (2 Tim 3:7). He called himself the least of all the apostles and yet, in many ways, he was the greatest. He left us a wealth of instruction on how to live the christian life and was himself a shining example for us to follow. It therefore concerns me when people write him off as legalistic or his example as too difficult to follow. How could the writer of Galatians possibly be legalistic! Paul, were he alive today, would be the first to say that we should follow Jesus, not Paul, however if we ignore Paul we are missing something, because Paul's writings, inspired by the Holy Spirit, point us to Jesus. That is why they are included in the Canon of Scripture and I am uncomfortable with the current trend among some christians to minimise or sideline Paul's epistles - an example being Professor Donald Macleod of the Free Church, who is reported as saying in a BBC radio interview "My concern is to go back to Jesus. I even feel uncomfortable going back to St.Paul." Why? The two (Paul and Jesus) are not incompatible. If we didn't have the gospels, we would still be able to understand the gospel and know Christ through Paul's writings.

It seems to me that those who want to go back to Jesus and who ignore Paul are really modern-day liberals who preach a gospel of love and grace while quietly ignoring the fact that grace is not a licence to sin. Paul was an observant Jew who had a supernatural encounter with the living Christ which changed his life from that moment on. He then became the apostle to the gentiles. That's you and me, unless you are a Jew. That's why we need to pay attention to his teachings. He had the background to understand the law and the prophets and he had the revelation of Christ as Messiah. He is also a wonderful example of perseverance in the face of persecution. The writer John Buchan understood this. In his book, Mr Standfast, one of the characters discourses on courage. 'It's easy to be brave if you're feeling well and have food inside you ... but the big courage is the cold-blooded kind, the kind that never lets go even when you're feeling empty inside, and your blood's thin, and there's no kind of fun or profit to be had, and the trouble's not over in an hour or two but lasts for months and years ... fortitude's the biggest thing a man can have - just to go on enduring when there's no guts or heart left in you ... the head man at the job (fortitude) was the Apostle Paul.' (Mr Standfast Chapter XI)

Now Paul is one of the great cloud of witnesses who surround us and I, for one, am glad of his example.

On adding to the faith

It seems to me that the reason why so many people have trouble accepting that Roman Catholicism is not a true Christian denomination is because Catholicism does not deny the fundamentals of the Christian faith so much as add to them. An example of this is the Alpha Course. Roman Catholics have their own version of this which is the same as the Protestant version but with the addition of two extra chapters dealing with Roman Catholic sacraments and other practices of the Roman church.

Why is adding to the Christian faith a problem? Surely as long as we all agree on the fundamentals that is enough? For an answer to this, first read the book of Galatians. Then listen to the video on this link here.

Make your views known on assisted suicide

There is an important consultation going on in the Scottish Parliament right now which you should prayerfully consider responding to. It is a consultation on Margo Macdonald's second attempt to bring forward a bill to legalise assisted suicide. The details can be found by clicking here. CARE for Scotland recommend that you only answer Question 1 if you do not agree with legalising assisted suicide and you can do that by emailing Margo at the address towards the end of the consultation document. It only takes a few minutes to make your views known on this important matter.

How to avoid being deceived

Deception has always threatened the church. Jesus warned about it. Paul wrote several of his letters to counter it, Peter and John had strong words to say about it. It is nothing new, however the scale of deception assaulting the church at the moment seems to be far more than at any other time in history, save the early days of the church when they did not have the Gospels and Epistles. That, together with other global events, indicates to me that we are in the last days. The main reason I decided to start writing this blog was to counter, in some small way, the deceptions I find creeping into the church in Scotland. I do not expect anyone to just accept what I say here as gospel - I expect them to go away and search the scriptures to see if what I say is true. I also expect them to do some background reading, which is why I provide links to other websites in many of my articles.

This blog is aimed at mature christians. If you are a new christian my advice to you would be to concentrate on reading the Bible. Read a decent translation, not a paraphrase like The Message or the Living Bible. Don't skip any of it, because you need to get the big picture. Go to a church where they preach from the Bible. Go to a good Bible study group if you can. Then, when you've read the Bible, you can use it to measure what I say. If you are a mature christian and you have not read all of the Bible, go away and read it all. You need to get the big picture. How can you use the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God if you haven't read it all?

I cannot hope to cover all the deceptions of the enemy in  this blog, however if you really know the Word of God, you will be able to recognise deception when you see it and that is vitally important. In the words of Jesus "Watch out that no-one deceives you." (Matthew 24:4 NIV)

Where do you draw the line?

In this age of increasing deception and compromise, I am wondering where one should draw the line when it comes to fellowshipping with people who do not hold exactly the same views as me. I don't think I am alone in wondering this and so I want to explore the issue in this post, and am taking the unusual step of opening it for comments so that others can contribute to the discussion if they wish.

As I have already said, I am an Arminian Baptist. I have described Arminianism elsewhere on this blog and I believe in adult, or believer's, baptism, not the christening of infants. At the moment I attend a Presbyterian church which is Calvinist and practises infant baptism. So you would be right in deducing that I don't see these things as deal-breakers when it comes to christian fellowship. Maybe some people would. However, if my church were to start holding joint services of worship with Our Lady of Lourdes RC church round the corner I would be out of there like a shot. A line would have been crossed because I don't believe that we share the same gospel with the Roman Catholic church.

If a minister were to preach something contrary to the Word of God as expressed in Scripture, I would leave that church. It is dangerous to sit and listen to heresy - eventually you will start to believe it. If a church leader were to start advocating things which are extra-biblical, such as lectio divina, visions of angels, centering prayer, Toronto-blessing type manifestations, I would also leave. These things are not founded in the Bible and can lead one into deception. You'll notice I'm talking about what the minister or leader is doing. That is because they set the direction of the church. I would be concerned if a member of the congregation had unbiblical views but it would not be a leaving issue for me unless it infected the whole congregation.

What else would cause me to leave a church? The use of The Message as the primary version of the Bible. Participation in the Purpose Driven Church program. Promotion of extra-biblical revelation and experiential christianity. A female leader. A leadership which is above criticism. Attempts to unduly control and influence my life in areas where the church has no authority eg telling me what job to take, what house to live in, who to marry. (Those are the signs of a cult, not a church.) Undue pressure to give financially to the church. I'm sure I could think of a few more things given time and I'll maybe expand on some of the above in later posts, again given time!

One particularly pressing issue for many in Scotland at the moment is the fact that, while their church is fine and their minister is sound, the denomination to which they belong is going off the rails. That is a difficult one. Do you (or should you) belong to the local church or do you belong to the denomination? Should you leave a good church just because the denomination is bad? I don't know the answer to that and, I suspect, many others don't either. It needs to be a matter for much prayer and, ultimately, the conscience of the individual. I personally am not loyal to any particular denomination and so look for the best church locally.

Ultimately the issue is not whether I agree with the minister/church/denomination. It's whether they agree with the Word of God as set forth in the Bible. When Paul and his companions arrived in Berea with the gospel, the Bereans "received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." (Acts 17:11b NIV) We need to be like that and not like the Corinthians who "put up with a different gospel" to the one Paul preached "easily enough". (2 Corinthians 11:4b NIV)

Free Church abandoning the Westminster Confession?

As an Arminian Baptist, I do not subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith, which is the subordinate standard of most Presbyterian churches, including the Free Church of Scotland, because of its Calvinist standpoint and emphasis on infant baptism. I do, however, agree with its stance on Christ being the head of the church, not the Pope, and its repudiation of the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. It is therefore worrying to see that some Free Church ministers are now abandoning the Westminster Confession (and, it seems, their ordination vows) in favour of ecumenical relations with the Roman Catholic Church. Rev James Maciver, last year's Free Church moderator, joined in an ecumenical watchnight service with the Church of Scotland and the Roman Catholic Church in Stornoway in December and was praised for it by Rev Professor Donald Macleod, recently retired Professor of Systematic Theology at the Free Church College in Edinburgh, in his Footnotes article for the West Highland Free Press of 30-12-11. In addition, Rev David Robertson went on air on Radio Scotland in 2010 and welcomed the Pope to Scotland as a 'fellow-christian' which is definitely not how the Pope is described in Chapter XXV of the Westminster Confession.

It seems to me that the Free Church needs to either discipline these men (who are very influential within the denomination) or else come clean and admit that they no longer regard the Westminster Confession of Faith as their confessional document. Then at least we would all know where we stand. Personally I think it is very sad that these ministers should have been so deceived as to forget what the Reformation was about and accept Roman Catholicism as a christian faith. Without the restraining influence of those who left to form the Free Church (Continuing) in 2000 it seems that the Free Church of Scotland is now beginning to go down the same path as the Church of Scotland, albeit 40 years behind. They'll be appointing women elders next.

Angels - the new god?

I was browsing the religious section of my local library this afternoon and was amazed at the number of books on angels. Perhaps I shouldn't have been - there is plenty of evidence around that angels are the new god, from angel workshops to cute little statuettes of angels in people's homes. It seems there is an angel for every occasion - a bit like saints - and you can read about how to harness their power for your own benefit. Sadly even Christians are being taken in by all this - I personally have encountered Christians who pray to angels, invoke their help and have a special guardian angel whom they regard as a mascot. They obviously haven't read Hebrews recently, otherwise they would know that angels are ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation, but that salvation comes through faith in Christ, who is far above the angels. (Hebrews 1)

Nowhere in Scripture does it tell us to pray to angels - quite the opposite. In Colossians 2:18 we are warned against those who worship angels and praying to angels instead of to God is, I believe, idolatry. It is God who commands the angels, not us (Psalm 91:11). We are commanded to pray to God, in the name of His Son and to make all our requests known to God, not to angels. If God decides to answer our prayers by sending an angel, that is his prerogative. Personally I'd rather he used other means, as encounters with angels in Scripture usually left the person concerned terrified! Angels are not cute, cuddly beings - they are awesome messengers and mighty warriors. They are also always male, not female, so the female angel which Todd Bentley claimed to have seen floating along was not Biblical.

It seems to me that people become interested in angels because they want to believe that someone is looking after them but they don't want to have to deal with a righteous God. They are not interested in repenting of their sin and worship of angels doesn't require them to. All is sweetness and light and love. It is a false gospel. Christians who have a wrong image of God as stern, harsh and unapproachable sometimes find that angels are much easier to believe in and pray to but the real answer is to gain a right understanding of God as a loving heavenly Father through reading His Word. Worship of angels will only lead one deeper into deception. Remember that Satan can appear as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14).

As Christians, we should be grateful for the ministry and protection of angels but we should not seek to contact them. Our relationship is with God the Father, through his Son Jesus Christ our Saviour and the Holy Spirit is our comforter, who reveals Jesus to us (John 16:14) and helps us to pray as we ought (Rom 8:26).

Is the UK a Christian country?

According to a poll carried out by Ipsos-Mori for the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, half of those in Britain who say they are Christian rarely go to church while nearly 60% do not read the Bible. Such statistics allow Dawkins to claim that Britain is not the Christian nation which some claim it to be, based on the fact that more than 50% of the population still identify themselves as 'Christian' when asked about their religion.

Frankly, I am really uneasy when anyone claims that this is still a Christian nation, because my experience says that it manifestly is not, and so I am not surprised at the result of this latest poll. Reading the Bible and going to church are not essential for salvation, which is through faith in Christ and not through good works, however they are a pretty good indicator as to whether someone is a genuine Christian or not. Dawkins therefore has a point when he claims that Christianity is not as prevalent as some would make out. However, the fact that a significant number of people in this country still tick 'Christian' as opposed to 'atheist' or 'none' when asked about their religion does mean something. They may not be born again, they may not be practising Christians, but they are still comfortable with being labelled as a Christian and the backlash currently under way against militant secularism is a reflection of this.

I do not believe that we should be imposing Christianity on the nation, as I said in my last post, however I do believe that Christians should be involved in public life and should encourage people to live by God's laws. It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that anyone, whatever their faith, can so compartmentalise their life as to leave their faith out of it when they go into their job, be it as a politician, councillor, doctor, teacher or whatever. Your religion or belief system is integral to your life, it influences all your opinions and decisions and secularists are not exempt from this rule. Christians should not be ashamed of their faith and should not be bullied into keeping it 'just for Sundays'. It applies to all the other days of the week too.

If there is one thing above all which the great British public hates, it is intolerance. Hopefully, the increasing aggressiveness of the secularists will be self-defeating in just the same way as attempts to impose Christian morals on the public have been.

Prayers banned in council meetings

As an Arminian, I believe that God has graciously given man free will and man can use that free will to deny the existence of God and exclude Him from their lives. As Christians, I believe that we should try to persuade men, as it says in 2 Corinthians 5:11, but always accepting that they may choose to reject the gospel which we bring. Christianity cannot be imposed on people - to do so goes against everything the Bible teaches us. In that context, I was interested to read today about the decision on prayers in council meetings in England and Wales handed down by the courts. It seems that the matter hinges on whether the time of prayer is part of the agenda of the meeting, in which case councillors are summoned to attend that part of the meeting, as opposed to prayers being apart from the official business of the council, in which case atheist councillors need not attend. Today's ruling states that having prayers as part of the agenda is unlawful, however the judge said 'prayers could be said as long as councillors were not formally summoned to attend'.

I have to say that I am in agreement with the judgement as reported. I would not like to be forced to attend prayers to non-Christian gods. I therefore think that we as Christians should extend the same courtesy to those of other religions, including atheists and humanists. We are currently seeing a rise in militant atheism, militant humanism and militant Islam. All seek to force their viewpoint on others. Christians should not be like that - we should seek to share the Truth in love, without force, and so try and win people to Christ. Militant Christianity is also on the rise these days and it is as much to be deplored as the other militant religions I have listed above. We do not fight force with force. We should stand fast in what we believe, always being prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks us to give the reason for the hope that we have (1 Peter 3:15) but also being prepared for the fact that they may not accept what we say. In that case, we pray for them and leave them with God. Only the Holy Spirit working within someone can ultimately bring them to repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

You couldn't make it up

If someone had told me 30 years ago that the line between christianity and science fiction would become blurred, I would not have believed it. Back then, sci-fi was about Star Wars, Blade Runner, Dune and Close Encounters of the Third Kind while christianity was the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Not any more. Now we have books like Nephilim Stargates by Thomas Horn which attempts to marry Bible stories with mythology and modern science (and human women with fallen angels/aliens from outer space) and christians are just lapping it all up. Somehow the Bible isn't enough any more - it's boring. Extra-terrestrials and UFOs and Watchers from beyond the world are much more exciting, as are conspiracy theories and mutant trans-humans. Just type 'nephilim' into google or Amazon and you will see what I mean. (The Daniel Project movie which I reviewed in an earlier post also includes mentions of communication from beyond our world and the Nephilim.)

Don't get me wrong - I think that there are things going on in labs around the world that christians should be concerned about because man always has a tendency to play god. Embryo research is one of them, however I don't believe we are about to see any mutant humans or resurrected Nephilim. Such theories are based, in my opinion, on extremely suspect interpretation of a few verses in Genesis, bolstered by non-biblical texts and a good dose of unsanctified imagination! Herescope does a good job of debunking a lot of what Horn has to say. The sad thing is that far more christians will read Horn's books than read Herescope.

Another interesting marriage happening now is that of quantum physics and new age spirituality. I studied quantum mechanics at university. It is a way of describing the behaviour of sub-atomic particles, just as classical mechanics describes the behaviour of larger things such as cars and planes. Now, however, we have 'quantum spirituality'. I'm not exactly sure what it is but it appears in books as diverse as Soul Tsunami by Leonard Sweet and The Shack by William Young. It seems to mean that 'God is in everything' or, in other words, panentheism. This is not biblical - according to the Bible, God created everything and He sustains everything but He is not IN everything.

I also came across fractals a few years ago when a fellow computer programmer showed them to me. There's nothing special about them - they are just a pictorial representation of a mathematical formula - however they are now being endowed with spiritual significance. According to Jean Huston, a New Age advocate of human potential, “Fractals show a holistic hidden order behind things, a harmony in which everything affects everything else, and, above all, an endless variety of interwoven patterns.” They are being used to support the non-Biblical theory that order evolved out of chaos. There is a hidden order behind things - He is called God and He is a person, not an impersonal force. Again, Herescope has some very good articles on both fractals and quantum spirituality and the flawed theology of The Shack.

When people stop believing in the God of the Bible, they will believe in anything, including aliens, ghosts, messages from outer space and superhumans. Sadly, it now seems that some christians have also started to abandon the Word of God and believe in such things. Science fiction is just that - fiction. It should not be confused with the Truth.

For Him

One of the pitfalls of writing a blog like this is that it can become just an endless list of criticisms, especially in these days of widespread deception. It is easy to lose sight of the reason I do this. I am therefore glad for articles like this one on Reformed Arminian blog. It reminds me why I do what I do and why I should do what I do. Because every false gospel and every deception has but one aim - to replace the real gospel and the real Christ within the hearts of believers with a false one, an anti-christ.
'Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray.' 1 John 3:7a (NIV)

Dog in the manger

As I said in an earlier post, a denomination is not a denomination when members do not feel that they can freely worship in all churches belonging to that denomination. That is certainly the case now with the Church of Scotland, given that some members still hold to the Bible as being not only the Word of God but our rule for living, while others have decided that they know better than the Bible and can dispense with some (all?) of its teachings. The CofS is now too broad a church to continue in its present form, which is why some congregations and ministers have already left and others are considering doing so. It would be good if the split could happen amicably however it would seem that 121 (George Street - HQ of the CofS) is determined to make it as difficult as possible. They are desperate to hold on to church buildings and manses, with the result that they are going to end up with a lot of empty buildings with no congregations or ministers and no money for the upkeep of said buildings. We have already seen the transformation of empty churches in Edinburgh into pubs and clubs and carpet warehouses over the years. Sadly, it seems that we are going to see a lot more of the same if the CofS continues with its present dog-in-the-manger attitude. It will be a pretty poor witness if Gilcomston South in Aberdeen ends up turning into a pub through the intransigence and pettiness of 121. And does 121 really think that they are going to be able to keep High Hilton going now that the minister, associate minister and a large part of the congregation have left?

The church is the people, not the building, and God will build His church in Scotland regardless of what the leadership of the CofS does, however they will still have to answer for their actions.

'Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows' Galations 6:7 (NIV)

Why what we believe matters

What we believe matters because it affects our actions.

• If we believe in a pre-tribulation rapture, we will not prepare ourselves for the tribulation.
• If we believe that Roman Catholicism is a Christian religion we will not evangelise Roman Catholics.
• If we believe that, as Christians, we cannot fall away, we will be complacent about deception and sin.
• If we believe in the power of positive thinking we will end up trying to pray a 2 deg rise in temperature from below freezing to above freezing. (I am not kidding - I have seen this being tried! It didn't work.)
• If we believe that the Bible is not absolute but has to be interpreted in the light of modern day thinking, we will accept homosexual marriage and female ministers.
• If we believe that we have to conquer the world as Christians before Christ returns then we will become militant and will try to impose Christianity on others rather than winning them to Christ.
• If we believe that we need to overcome the principalities and powers over a geographical area before we can evangelise, we will spend more time in so-called strategic spiritual warfare than we do in witnessing to the unsaved.

There are so many subtle deceptions coming into the church in these last days. The only way to avoid them is to know the Word. When tempted, Jesus answered Satan with 'it is written' - we should do the same. We need to be so familiar with the Bible - old and new testaments - that we can recognise a false teaching when we hear or see one. We need to check that what we believe is actually the truth because it is not only a matter of life and death - it is a matter of eternal salvation or eternal damnation.

'Take heed that ye be not deceived' Luke 21:8 KJV

To inspire and challenge you

In the course of my internet research I came across a great article which I'd like to share with you - Make God Great on Reformed Arminian blog. I hope it inspires and challenges you as much as it did me.

Why I don't believe Roman Catholicism is a Christian religion

A friend was shocked when she read my earlier post On the road to Rome?. Coming from a CofS background, she had accepted the ecumenical teaching now prevalent in that denomination. Since there may be many others like her, I feel I ought to give some explanation for why I do not consider Roman Catholicism to be a true Christian faith. For a start, Roman Catholicism is not about faith - it is a religion of works, such as penances, praying the rosary and regular attendance at Mass. This is in direct contradiction to the Bible, which states that 'by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God' (Ephesians 2:8 KJV). The Bible also clearly states that Christ is the head of the church, not the Pope, as it says in Colossians 1:18 'And he (Christ) is the head of the body, the church'.

Roman Catholicism places priests between God and man whereas the Bible tells us that 'there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ' (1 Timothy 2:5). Scripture also tells us that 'there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved' (Acts 4:12 NIV) however there are those in the RC church who would elevate Mary to the position of co-redeemer with Christ. Pope Benedict XVI is, at the moment, refusing to agree to this request, although some would say that this might change.

The Council of Trent, which is still in force, anathematised (cursed) any who believed that salvation was through faith alone, in Christ alone. Instead justification was declared to be offered upon the basis of faith and good works. It also upheld the use of icons in worship, which is in direct contradiction to the second commandment, upheld the doctrine of purgatory (which has no scriptural justification whatsoever) and the practice of praying to the saints, which contradicts Jesus' teaching on how to pray, namely to the Father.

If you are still not convinced, have a look at this article from a former Roman Catholic, now Baptist pastor. Many people in these days have forgotten what the reformation was about, however there are some who would still remind us and Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries is one of them. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries is another. I thank God for them.

PS. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that Roman Catholicism is not, in my opinion, a Christian faith. It is not for me to say whether individual Roman Catholics are Christian or not - only God ultimately knows what is in someone's heart.

New Year Message

As we go into a New Year filled with uncertainty on the global and national scene, and with many facing uncertainty in their jobs and personal lives, it is good to remember that, for those who have put their faith in Christ, 'neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord'. (Romans 8:38-39 NIV)

May you know that love and security in the coming year.