John Wycliffe was the morning star of the Reformation. He was a protestant and a reformer more than a century before Martin Luther ignited the Protestant Reformation in 1517. Through Wycliffe, God planted the seeds of the Reformation, He watered the seeds through John Hus, and He brought the flower of the Reformation to bloom through Martin Luther. The seed of the flower of the German Augustinian monk Luther's 95 theses was planted by the English scholar and churchman John Wycliffe.
Wycliffe died on New Year's Eve, 1384. Three decades later, he was condemned as a heretic. In 1415, the Council of Constance condemned the Bohemian reformer John Hus (c. 1370-1415) and burned him at the stake, and it condemned Wycliffe on 260 counts of heresy. The council ordered that Wycliffe's bones be exhumed, removed from the honored burial grounds of the church, and burned, and his ashes scattered. More than a decade later, the Roman Catholic Church sought to counteract the spreading heresies of Wycliffe and his followers, the Lollards, by establishing Lincoln College, Oxford, under the leadership of Bishop Richard Fleming. Although the pope could condemn Wycliffe's teachings and scatter his bones, he was unable to stamp out his influence. Wycliffe's ashes were scattered into the River Swift in England's Midlands, and as one journalist later observed: "They burnt his bones to ashes and cast them into the Swift, a neighboring brook running hard by. Thus the brook hath conveyed his ashes into Avon; Avon into Severn; Severn into the narrow seas; and they into the main ocean. And thus the ashes of Wycliffe are the emblem of his doctrine which now is dispersed the world over."
Wycliffe was committed to the authority and inspiration of Holy Scripture, declaring, "Holy Scripture is the highest authority for every believer, the standard of faith and the foundation for reform in religious, political and social life....in itself it is perfectly sufficient for salvation, without the addition of customs or traditions." As such, Wycliffe oversaw the translation of the Bible from Latin into the English vernacular. This was a radical undertaking, and it was against the express mandate of the papacy. His understanding of Scripture naturally led to his understanding of justification by faith alone, as he declared, "Trust wholly in Christ. Rely altogether on his sufferings. Beware of seeking to be justified in any other way than by his righteousness. Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is sufficient for salvation."
In the fourteenth century, at the dawn of the Reformation, Wycliffe shone as a burning and shining light of gospel truth, and his doctrine mirrored his life as one who lived by God's grace and before God's face, coram Deo, and for God's glory. Soli Deo gloria.
(Dr. Burk Parsons, editor of Tabletalk magazine, Tabletalk, July 2014, www.ligonier.org)
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
What Would Jesus Say? (And How Would He Say It?)
Christians today sometimes seem more concerned about the tone of what they say than the truth of it. Many a twenty-first-century church leader apparently thinks he is obliged to yield quietly to majority opinion on moral issues - while carefully observing all the rules of postmodern propriety.
Jesus was not like that. He was no domesticated clergyman with a starched collar and genteel manners; He was a bold prophet who regularly challenged the canons of political correctness.
The first word of Jesus' first sermon was repent - a term that was no more welcome then than it is today. Those without any sense of personal guilt - including the vast majority of religious leaders - were of course immediately offended. They were convinced that they were good enough to merit God's favor. Who was this man to summon them to repentance? They turned away from Jesus in angry unbelief.
The first act of Jesus' public ministry touched off a small riot. He made a whip of cords and chased money-changers and merchants out of the temple. That initiated a three-year-long conflict with the religious leaders. They ultimately handed Him over for crucifixion while crowds of laypeople cheered them on.
Would He receive a warmer welcome today from religious leaders, the media elite, or the political gentry? Anyone who has seriously considered the New Testament knows the answer. Postmodern culture is devoted to relativism. The average person is contemptuous of all absolute or exclusive truth-claims; convinced that self-love is the greatest love of all; satisfied that people are fundamentally good; and desperately wanting to believe that each of us is endowed with a spark of divinity.
To such people's ears, Jesus' message strikes a discordant note. He said: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?" (Luke 9:23-25) and, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (14:26).
How would Jesus contextualize that message for a pluralistic, tolerant, self-indulgent society like ours? I'm convinced His approach today would be the very same that we see in the Bible. To smug, self-satisfied, arrogant sinners (including multitudes on church rolls), His words would sound harsh, shocking, provocative. But to "the poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3) - those who are exhausted and spent by the rages of sin, desperate for forgiveness, and without any hope of atoning for their own sin - Jesus' call to repentant faith remains the very gateway to eternal life.
(Dr.John MacArthur, president of The Master's College and Seminary, Tabletalk, July 2014, www.ligonier.org)
Jesus was not like that. He was no domesticated clergyman with a starched collar and genteel manners; He was a bold prophet who regularly challenged the canons of political correctness.
The first word of Jesus' first sermon was repent - a term that was no more welcome then than it is today. Those without any sense of personal guilt - including the vast majority of religious leaders - were of course immediately offended. They were convinced that they were good enough to merit God's favor. Who was this man to summon them to repentance? They turned away from Jesus in angry unbelief.
The first act of Jesus' public ministry touched off a small riot. He made a whip of cords and chased money-changers and merchants out of the temple. That initiated a three-year-long conflict with the religious leaders. They ultimately handed Him over for crucifixion while crowds of laypeople cheered them on.
Would He receive a warmer welcome today from religious leaders, the media elite, or the political gentry? Anyone who has seriously considered the New Testament knows the answer. Postmodern culture is devoted to relativism. The average person is contemptuous of all absolute or exclusive truth-claims; convinced that self-love is the greatest love of all; satisfied that people are fundamentally good; and desperately wanting to believe that each of us is endowed with a spark of divinity.
To such people's ears, Jesus' message strikes a discordant note. He said: "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?" (Luke 9:23-25) and, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (14:26).
How would Jesus contextualize that message for a pluralistic, tolerant, self-indulgent society like ours? I'm convinced His approach today would be the very same that we see in the Bible. To smug, self-satisfied, arrogant sinners (including multitudes on church rolls), His words would sound harsh, shocking, provocative. But to "the poor in spirit" (Matt. 5:3) - those who are exhausted and spent by the rages of sin, desperate for forgiveness, and without any hope of atoning for their own sin - Jesus' call to repentant faith remains the very gateway to eternal life.
(Dr.John MacArthur, president of The Master's College and Seminary, Tabletalk, July 2014, www.ligonier.org)
Monday, July 14, 2014
Remembering Those Who Risked It All For FReedom
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the Declaration of Independence, which was appproved on July 4, 1776, by the C ontinental Congress, is the mere fact that it exists.
Nowhere, ever, had a people offered to the world an open moral defense of their revolutionary, law-breaking intentions, at a moment when their actions on the battlefield appeared more suicidal than hopeful.
And nowhere, ever, before or after, has the cause of freedom been presented more perfectly, poetically or beautifully
All the men who signed the Declaration knew they were possibly signing away their lives and everything else dear to them. What was "revolution" for them was treason from the English Crown's point of view, and the punishment if they were caught would be torture and death at the hands of English soldiers - the most lethal military in the world at that time.
The macabre seriousness of the occasion was forever memorialized in the closing line of the Declaration, as the signers pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." Their pledge remains somewhat famous. But often people forget to whom the pledge was made: they pledged all they had not to God and not to the citizenry at large. Their pledge was to one another.
They knew well that if any betrayed the trust among them, the revolution would fail and freedom would have to wait for another time, another place. But their loyalty to each other and to the cause of freedom was unbreakable. And we today are the beneficiaries of their mutual loyalty.
The moral and political premise of the Declaration of Independence was a simple yet radical idea: Every human being - regardless of the time or place of birth, or gender, or the color of one'skin, or the language one speaks,or the gods one worships - possesses by nature a body that houses a free mind. In this way, all men truly are created equal. That's the simple part.
From this simple observation flow radical implications: If a body is home to a free mind, then that mind is the only truly rightful governor of that body. Self-government is right because it is woven into the fabric of human nature.
Any form of slavery or tyranny - any attempt of the mind of one person to own,control or abuse the body of another - is therefore wrong. Every moral wrong between human beings is a testament to the rightness of human equality.
Further, if a free mind directs the body it governs to create something, invent something, produce something useful, then the fruit of that labor belongs solely to the mind that made it. It belongs to no one else. Here we see that the idea of property is less economic, emphatically moral.
No one has a right to any property or any wealth that has been produced or earned by someone else. The inventions of some people are never the rights of others.
Consider: No one knows what future products or services technology might invent. But we know that no one has a right to them. You're free to work and earn and save in order to buy them, of course. But you have no right to them. If you did, then others would have an obligation now to invent them. Who has such an obligation? Answer: no one. And therefore no one has a right to anything that might be invented or produced by others, now or later.
From all this, a radical new vision of government arose in America: The purpose of government would be limited to protecting the natural freedoms, natural rights and property of those who mutually and voluntarily consent to form a government.
A government of limited purpose should be a government of limited power, which is precisely why the U. S. Constitution was written and ratified - to enumerate the few powers We The People grant to the government we created, and to make clear that government may not rightfully do anything else. Period.
More: Citizens have good reason to trust one another, because none has any legal authority to take anything away from or harm others. But government is different. Every law, every regulation, every rule and order and decree issued from government is ultimately backed up by the barrel of a gun. Government is a monopoly of force.
So while government may always be necessary, it's also always dangerous. A people who are wise and expect to remain free might extend civic trust to one another, but they should bind their government officials by the chains of the Constitution.
And if ever government exerises unjust and unauthorized powers, and we have no peaceful remedy available to us, we always reserve the natural right to choose revolution once again, just like we did on July 4, 1776. That's what freedom looks like. And that's what Independence Day is all about.
So let us celebrate this Fourth of July, 2014. As you enjoy the fireworks after sunset, let them be a reminderof the explosive fighting and dying required to establish the freedom you enjoy today. Remember how they fought, that for which they fought, and why we all are better off for it.
(Thomas Krannawitter, former professor of politics at Hillsdale College, now president of Speakeasy Ideas, Investors Business Daily, July 7, 2014)
Nowhere, ever, had a people offered to the world an open moral defense of their revolutionary, law-breaking intentions, at a moment when their actions on the battlefield appeared more suicidal than hopeful.
And nowhere, ever, before or after, has the cause of freedom been presented more perfectly, poetically or beautifully
All the men who signed the Declaration knew they were possibly signing away their lives and everything else dear to them. What was "revolution" for them was treason from the English Crown's point of view, and the punishment if they were caught would be torture and death at the hands of English soldiers - the most lethal military in the world at that time.
The macabre seriousness of the occasion was forever memorialized in the closing line of the Declaration, as the signers pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor." Their pledge remains somewhat famous. But often people forget to whom the pledge was made: they pledged all they had not to God and not to the citizenry at large. Their pledge was to one another.
They knew well that if any betrayed the trust among them, the revolution would fail and freedom would have to wait for another time, another place. But their loyalty to each other and to the cause of freedom was unbreakable. And we today are the beneficiaries of their mutual loyalty.
The moral and political premise of the Declaration of Independence was a simple yet radical idea: Every human being - regardless of the time or place of birth, or gender, or the color of one'skin, or the language one speaks,or the gods one worships - possesses by nature a body that houses a free mind. In this way, all men truly are created equal. That's the simple part.
From this simple observation flow radical implications: If a body is home to a free mind, then that mind is the only truly rightful governor of that body. Self-government is right because it is woven into the fabric of human nature.
Any form of slavery or tyranny - any attempt of the mind of one person to own,control or abuse the body of another - is therefore wrong. Every moral wrong between human beings is a testament to the rightness of human equality.
Further, if a free mind directs the body it governs to create something, invent something, produce something useful, then the fruit of that labor belongs solely to the mind that made it. It belongs to no one else. Here we see that the idea of property is less economic, emphatically moral.
No one has a right to any property or any wealth that has been produced or earned by someone else. The inventions of some people are never the rights of others.
Consider: No one knows what future products or services technology might invent. But we know that no one has a right to them. You're free to work and earn and save in order to buy them, of course. But you have no right to them. If you did, then others would have an obligation now to invent them. Who has such an obligation? Answer: no one. And therefore no one has a right to anything that might be invented or produced by others, now or later.
From all this, a radical new vision of government arose in America: The purpose of government would be limited to protecting the natural freedoms, natural rights and property of those who mutually and voluntarily consent to form a government.
A government of limited purpose should be a government of limited power, which is precisely why the U. S. Constitution was written and ratified - to enumerate the few powers We The People grant to the government we created, and to make clear that government may not rightfully do anything else. Period.
More: Citizens have good reason to trust one another, because none has any legal authority to take anything away from or harm others. But government is different. Every law, every regulation, every rule and order and decree issued from government is ultimately backed up by the barrel of a gun. Government is a monopoly of force.
So while government may always be necessary, it's also always dangerous. A people who are wise and expect to remain free might extend civic trust to one another, but they should bind their government officials by the chains of the Constitution.
And if ever government exerises unjust and unauthorized powers, and we have no peaceful remedy available to us, we always reserve the natural right to choose revolution once again, just like we did on July 4, 1776. That's what freedom looks like. And that's what Independence Day is all about.
So let us celebrate this Fourth of July, 2014. As you enjoy the fireworks after sunset, let them be a reminderof the explosive fighting and dying required to establish the freedom you enjoy today. Remember how they fought, that for which they fought, and why we all are better off for it.
(Thomas Krannawitter, former professor of politics at Hillsdale College, now president of Speakeasy Ideas, Investors Business Daily, July 7, 2014)
Thursday, July 3, 2014
Proclaim the Truth
What do you think is considered the most-performed music and message of all time? If you guessed Handael's Messiah, you are right. One of the texts chosen for the oratorio masterpiece is from Psalm 2:1-4: "The kings of the earth rise up, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord,...He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision." Though the scriputres reveal that the blaspheming of God and Christ will know no bounds, the Lord will have the last laugh.
Indeed, the same thing is expressed in Psalm 59:8, preceded by verse 7 which says, quoting from the Amplified Bible, "Behold they belch out (insults) with their mouths; swords (of sarcasm, ridicule, slander, and lies) are in their lips, for who, they think, hears us?" Man's wickedness is revealed not only in his actions, but in his verbal cruelty and deception. And it can be very hard to stand against the verbal onslaught.
Over the years, I"ve been struck by the venom and vitriol of evolutionists against biblical creationists. Insults, ridicule and censorship are the norm from evolutionists. Consider the following attacks on creationist books in Amazon's customer reviews: "A shallow litany of ludicrous non-peer reviewed argument." "A veritable bestiary of methodological super-naturalists operating at the edge of inanity - and only one 's' away from insanity." Excuse me? Do I need to remind you that creationists get censored from peer-reviewed journals because we don't fit the evolutionist "mold"? And remember this - clever insults are not arguments. Yet,the constant ridicule does take its toll on many and is a powerful weapon wielded by the enemy.
Toward the end of his life, C.S. Lewis wished that he had attacked and exposed evolution as "the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that governs our lives." He said he could confirm its deception from the vigor with which evolution's defenders denied any alternative - "the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders", he said in his letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951.
Ridicule of young earth creationists comes even from other Christian quarters - including otherwise "conservative" Christians who, for example, have subscribed to the "Gap Theory" or to some form of "progressive" creation compromise. Indeed, their withering ridicule works to suppress conversation, obscure the actual arguments and turn friends into foes.
The tactic of insult and ridicule is followed up by punishment of dissent - hence, the outlawing of criticism of evolution in the public schools. And the silencing of debate is now being applied to other dubious and/or immoral issues championed by the modern world - such as "climate change" and homosexual "rights". Those who disagree are insulted, ridiculed and punished.
Consider how "global warming" has morphed into "climate change", so that people who disagree about the effects of man-made "carbon dioxide pollution" are now labeled as "climate deniers" and "science deniers".
Such is the "belching" of insults and the "swords" of ridicule being brought to bear against those who question the "wisdom" of this world. Secretary of State John Kerry, for example, recently said in a speech that "climate change " is perhaps "the world's most fearsome destructive weapon" and mocked those who question it as "members of the Flat Earth Society." Sound familiar?
And, of course,anybody who criticizes the LGBT agenda is labeled a bigot or a homophobe, an attempt to bully people into silence. Cities, states and private companies are now punishing those who disagree about gender-neutral bathrooms or about forcing businesses to participate in gay marriages. They are also trying to force us to agree with the firing of executives who donate on behalf of traditional marriage, as happened recently with Internet search engine Mozilla's CEO. The fascist/totalitarian nature of these reactions mirrors what has been happening for many years with biblical creationists.
A "silver lining" to these developments is that as the worldly ideologues push their other agendas, it helps expose their complete bias regarding creation science. The argument is not and has never really been about science. It has always been about promoting the secularist worldview and agenda.....and silencing those of us with a biblical worldview.
We (Creation Moments) must continue to refute the various arguments and accusations of the worldly philosophers of evolution - including the wolves in sheep's clothing within the visible Church. We cannot and must not let ridicule, slander and lies slience the proclamation of God's foundational truths!
(Mark Cadwallader, Board Chairman, Creation Moments, Inc., www.creationmoments.com)
Indeed, the same thing is expressed in Psalm 59:8, preceded by verse 7 which says, quoting from the Amplified Bible, "Behold they belch out (insults) with their mouths; swords (of sarcasm, ridicule, slander, and lies) are in their lips, for who, they think, hears us?" Man's wickedness is revealed not only in his actions, but in his verbal cruelty and deception. And it can be very hard to stand against the verbal onslaught.
Over the years, I"ve been struck by the venom and vitriol of evolutionists against biblical creationists. Insults, ridicule and censorship are the norm from evolutionists. Consider the following attacks on creationist books in Amazon's customer reviews: "A shallow litany of ludicrous non-peer reviewed argument." "A veritable bestiary of methodological super-naturalists operating at the edge of inanity - and only one 's' away from insanity." Excuse me? Do I need to remind you that creationists get censored from peer-reviewed journals because we don't fit the evolutionist "mold"? And remember this - clever insults are not arguments. Yet,the constant ridicule does take its toll on many and is a powerful weapon wielded by the enemy.
Toward the end of his life, C.S. Lewis wished that he had attacked and exposed evolution as "the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that governs our lives." He said he could confirm its deception from the vigor with which evolution's defenders denied any alternative - "the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders", he said in his letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951.
Ridicule of young earth creationists comes even from other Christian quarters - including otherwise "conservative" Christians who, for example, have subscribed to the "Gap Theory" or to some form of "progressive" creation compromise. Indeed, their withering ridicule works to suppress conversation, obscure the actual arguments and turn friends into foes.
The tactic of insult and ridicule is followed up by punishment of dissent - hence, the outlawing of criticism of evolution in the public schools. And the silencing of debate is now being applied to other dubious and/or immoral issues championed by the modern world - such as "climate change" and homosexual "rights". Those who disagree are insulted, ridiculed and punished.
Consider how "global warming" has morphed into "climate change", so that people who disagree about the effects of man-made "carbon dioxide pollution" are now labeled as "climate deniers" and "science deniers".
Such is the "belching" of insults and the "swords" of ridicule being brought to bear against those who question the "wisdom" of this world. Secretary of State John Kerry, for example, recently said in a speech that "climate change " is perhaps "the world's most fearsome destructive weapon" and mocked those who question it as "members of the Flat Earth Society." Sound familiar?
And, of course,anybody who criticizes the LGBT agenda is labeled a bigot or a homophobe, an attempt to bully people into silence. Cities, states and private companies are now punishing those who disagree about gender-neutral bathrooms or about forcing businesses to participate in gay marriages. They are also trying to force us to agree with the firing of executives who donate on behalf of traditional marriage, as happened recently with Internet search engine Mozilla's CEO. The fascist/totalitarian nature of these reactions mirrors what has been happening for many years with biblical creationists.
A "silver lining" to these developments is that as the worldly ideologues push their other agendas, it helps expose their complete bias regarding creation science. The argument is not and has never really been about science. It has always been about promoting the secularist worldview and agenda.....and silencing those of us with a biblical worldview.
We (Creation Moments) must continue to refute the various arguments and accusations of the worldly philosophers of evolution - including the wolves in sheep's clothing within the visible Church. We cannot and must not let ridicule, slander and lies slience the proclamation of God's foundational truths!
(Mark Cadwallader, Board Chairman, Creation Moments, Inc., www.creationmoments.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)