“If all the time that I have spent praying for faith was put together it would be months.  I thought that some day faith was going to come down and strike me like lightning.  But faith did not come.  One day I read the tenth of Romans, ‘So then faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.’  I had closed my Bible, and prayed for ‘faith’.  I now opened my Bible and began to read God’s Word, and faith has been growing ever since.”

Sound advice.

The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name.

Several things are stated by our Protestant forefathers in this paragraph (which is also found in the WCF).  But the phrase that struck me with renewed force just recently is that which states, “some [churches] have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.”

There is no mincing of words here.  A bold, yet serious charge of how churches may start out as shining lights of gospel witness, and degenerate to the point where they relinquish all scriptural right to the name of ‘church’.  Instead, to use the language of both Scripture and our Confession, they become “synagogues of Satan”.

A recent case in point.  Just recently in our city, (April 22,23 & 25 – that is a Thursday, Friday and Sunday!) there were special meetings held in our city at Knox United Church.  Well, to be accurate, it was a ‘fair’.  Not just any kind of fair, mind you, but … get this … a Psychic Fair!

You read it correctly.  A Psychic Faith at a purportedly ‘christian church’ in which there were, (quoting from their advertising literature),  “Drummers, Belly dancers, Tai Chi, Chi King Demos, Crystal Singing Bowl Concert and More!  Tarot card readings, tea leaf readings, astrology, angel readings (don’t ask!), animal totems, psychometry, healing with crystals”, and the list goes on and on, including Rev. Dr. Jadine Ryder, D.D. who acts as a ‘Channel’ to put you in touch with “Spirit Guides, Angels and those Crossed Over”.

I read the article on angels, and it is nothing but thinly-disguised demon worship.  Here is just an excerpt of it:

“Archangel Uriel is the angel of Fire and can help you release fears, anger, and past energies which have been preventing you from moving forward on your spiritual life path. . . Ask for the wisdom and light of Uriel to help you let go of the past, to bring inner peace to your life or the life of whomever you are asking this help for.  Uriel will bring transformation and harmony. . . . call on Uriel . . . imagine the wings of Uriel burning and releasing you from the past into the present and forward to the future. . .”

We may hold to a very old Confession of Faith, one published over 320 years ago.  But there can be no denying that it speaks to a universal condition.  That is, the tendency to drift from the truth of God’s Word and to degenerate into the most abominable of practices – all of which are condemned by the very Bible that Protestant churches hold as their final authority in matters of faith and practice.

By opening up its doors to a psychic fair, the United Church has shown itself to be no longer a Church of Christ, but in a very real sense, a synagogue of Satan.

But here are some of the comments of Taylor Marshall that you will find in that article.

In answering the question, “From Where did Federal Vision Arise?”  He says it came from a number of movements.  He gives three. (Note the names Norman Shepherd and N.T. Wright)

1. There was the Norman Shepherd controversy in the 1980s at Westminster Seminary in which Shepherd highlighted the role of “works” in the Epistle of James. Shepherd soon afterward disappeared from the campus of Westminster Seminary.
2. There was the Theonomy or Reconstructionist Movement in Reformed/Presbyterian circles that sought to take the Old Testament seriously and apply its legal/covenantal framework to the New Testament economy. This project largely fell apart because it was, well, impossile. The remaining bright minds adjusted their theology from a civic model to a liturgical model and abandoned Theonomy. They became “liturgical Calvinists.”
3. These ex-Theonomists and their discioples went on to become excellent biblical theologians with a knack for seeing the role of Israel and Judaism in the New Covenant. They gravitated toward the work of Anglican theologian N.T. Wright.

On the question, “What is Federal Vision?” here is what he says. (bold emphasis mine)

The Federal Vision movement is so termed because it stresses the foedus, Latin for “covenant.” They are covenantal theologians par excellence. Fundamentally, Federal Visionists reject the bi-covenantal structure of the Scriptures taught in the Presbyterian articles of the Westminster Confession of Faith. In other words, the universe does not rotate on covenantal axis of “Works” and “Grace.” Federal Visionists would say that obedience and works are not opposed to grace. They rightly point out that before the fall, Adam worked, obeyed, and received the grace/favor of God. Grace and obedience are not opposed to one another.

It is not a surprise then that Federal Visionists believe that justification is best understood as “union with Christ” and not as the imputation of righteousness in a strict merit/demerit transaction. Very biblical and very Catholic.

Federal Visionists believe that the sacrament of Baptism actually accomplishes union with Christ – not in a nominal way, but in an ontological way. Again, very biblical and very Catholic. A person is Christian if they are baptized – they are either a “good Christian” or an “apostate Christian.” This somewhat approximates the way Catholics understand being in a state of grace or mortal sin.

Federal Visionists understand “election” primarily in terms of sacramental participation, much as the Catholic Church does.

Federal Visionists stress the need to “persevere in the covenant.” This is perceived by many of their Calvinist brethren to be a repudiation of the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, or to put it in Evangelical terms, “once saved, always saved.”

Hearkening back to Norman Shepherd, Federal Visionists believe that obedience to the Gospel is a necessarily element of salvation. This causes them to be lambasted as seeking a salvation through “works-righteousness.”

Note how over and over again, this Roman Catholic man views the FV theology as being compatible with Romanism.  When we in the Reformed churches were saying this, the FV defenders were loudly denouncing us as ‘unloving’, ‘not understanding’, ’simplistic’ (and those were the nice things they had to say about us!)  But now we have the public pronouncements of one from within Romanism that FV is in sync with the teachings of the Church of Rome.

His concluding remarks are even more troublesome.

How does he view the men who are teaching Federal Vision?

As a Catholic I believe the Federal Vision group is right in its theological tendencies and wrong about its denomination.

And looking ahead, what will the effect of teaching FV have on the (Presbyterian) Reformed churches?

Ultimately, I think that younger Presbyterians will gravitate toward what the Federal Vision offers. Many will sink their teeth into it and many will find it wanting. Many will discover that the Catholic Church is their true home, and many will discover her in a great moment of joy. This Federal Vision is really only a peek into the keyhole of the Catholic Church. The Federal Visionist has a vision of the beautiful things inside, but they have not yet appreciated the warmth of a true home.

It is not hard to understand how the FV heresy (let’s call it for what it is), can get a foothold in the paedobaptist reformed churches.  Once you have a wrong view of what constitutes a church (all baptized persons, including infants who have no faith in Christ), you are ripe to receive the teaching that all baptized persons are Christians.  In other words, if baptism puts you into the body of Christ (the church), then it is hardly a stretch to accept that the act of baptism actually and really “unites you to Christ” (makes you a Christian).  Slice and dice it anyway you want, that is baptismal regeneration.

Back in February, Doug Wilson, a leading FV proponent, spoke to the Atheist and Agnostic Student Group at Washington State University.  He was asked why he was a Christian.

Wilson: “I’m a Christian because I was brought up in a Christian home, and in adulthood I’ve researched and defended my beliefs”

Another student said he had “a hard time believing that if you don’t accept Jesus as your saviour, you’ll go to hell.”

Wilson’s response: “People are not condemned because they don’t believe in God.  They are condemned because they can’t be held to their own moral standards.”

The blind are still leading the blind.

Ye must have another regeneration than this, the work not of priestly fingers, with their hocus-pocus and superstitious genuflexions, but the work of the Eternal Spirit, who alone can regenerate the soul, whose office alone it is that can give light to the spiritually blinded eye, and sensation to the spiritually dead heart.

Be not misled by the priests of this age. Ye profess to have cast off Rome, cast off her Anglican children. Wear not the rags of her superstition, nor bear her mark in your foreheads. Ye must be born again in another sense than formality can work in you. It must be an inward work, a spiritual work, and only this can save your souls. If any man be in Christ Jesus, he is a new creature, that is, he has experienced a radical change.

For my part, I am definitely not in favour of this declaration, and the reasons given by evangelicals in favour of signing it are weak at best.  I started to write my own article about it, and then I read Richard Bennett’s.  Richard Bennett is a former Roman Catholic priest.  He brings an interesting perspective to the whole matter – one that I do not.

It is a comprehensive look at many facets of this issue, but it comes down to this:  according to Mr. Bennett, the Manhattan Declaration is simply another step by the Church of Rome towards “implementing Catholic social doctrine”.

As Mr. Bennett says,

“Through the use of social issues, the Roman Catholic Church seeks to draw true Evangelical Bible-believers into itself so that there can be no opposition by them on the fundamental issues of the authority of the Bible alone and the Gospel”.

The document is compromise at its worst (or best, depending on your view of such things!).

In order to achieve the solidarity among the parties of which the Website spoke, clearly all the compromises have been made by Timothy George as the Evangelical representative. (emphasis mine)

Richard Bennett goes on to show how the history of the Church of Rome was whitewashed in the document.  And as often is the case, it is in “what it fails to say” about Rome’s history that is the glaring problem here.  Here’s what he had to say on that:

The Preamble presents a few bits of history to support its claim to the heritage of Christian “tradition” but remains silent on the two most significant events of European history. The first is the six hundred year reign of terror by the Roman Catholic Papacy enforced by its murderous Inquisition. The second and equally important event is the Reformation of the sixteenth century – due to the recovery of the Bible and the Gospel in the hands of ordinary people. These two signal omissions were necessary because even to allude to either of them would destroy the supposed solidarity that MD purports to express.

For example, the Preamble states, “It was Christians who combated the evil of slavery: Papal edicts in the 16th and 17th centuries decried the practice of slavery and first excommunicated anyone involved in the slave trade….” However, by the start of the 16th century, three hundred years of enforced Papal edicts had already been enslaving Europe by robbing, torturing, and murdering millions of Bible believers and others throughout the Holy Roman Empire. The Inquisition was the Papal tool by which people were terrorized and forced into professing faith in the Roman Catholic false gospel and accompanying practices. It would be another three hundred years before the Inquisition was finally halted at the end of the eighteenth century. It is an outrage, and an utter disgrace, that Timothy George in particular, and Robert George as an educated man, allowed such whitewashing of the Roman Catholic Church’s bloody history be touted here.

Beginning in 1203, with “ethnic cleansing” of the Bible-believing Albigenses in France, the Papacy instituted its murderous system of Inquisition. In 1572, the Papacy, under edict from Pope Pius V before his death, was instrumental in the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, in which as many as 70,000 French Huguenots were “ethnically cleansed” from France. In the seventeenth century, the Papacy was heavily invested in “ethnic cleansing” of the Bible-believing Vaudois, or “people of the valleys” of the Cottian Alps. During World War II, the Roman Catholic state of Croatia, with the approval of the Papacy, wrecked “ethnic cleansing” on the Serbian Orthodox and others. The Papacy, too, was instrumental in preparing the way for the Holocaust of World War II, and it stood silently by while millions of Jews were murdered.  The Papacy has not changed in spite of its new tactic of calling Evangelicals “separated brethren” rather than heretics.

Richard Bennett has much more to say than this, and to get it the full comment you can read it at his website.  But in a nutshell, the Manhattan Declaration is little more than a furthering of the old Evangelicals and Catholics Together document published in 1994 and taking that into a call for political action.

Discerning Christians will not be fooled.

Q.1  What is faith?

A.  Faith is obedience to the law of the gospel.

Q.2  What is the gospel?

A.  The gospel is God’s law that everyone who believes and obeys Jesus will be saved (if they are faithful)

Q.3  What is the perseverance of the saints?

A.  It is when a person is faithful to the laws in the covenant.

Q.4  What is the covenant?

A. It is God’s unconditional, free promise that if we obey, we will be saved.

Q.5  What is grace?

A.  Grace is a free, unmerited gift that God gives us when we are faithful.

Q.6  Can a person lose his salvation?

A.  No one can lose their salvation unless they are unfaithful to the law of the gospel.

Q.7  What is God’s law?

A.  God’s law is that Jesus died for us and we have to obey Him.

Q.8  What is Justification?

A.  Justification is God declaring  us righteous when we obey the gospel by faith alone, not by works.

Q.9  What is Sanctification?

A.  Sanctification is when we are faithful to God’s gospel.

Q.10  What is repentance?

A.  Repentance?  Never heard of it.

Q.11  What is regeneration?

A.  Regeneration is what happens when a person is baptized.*

* Or as Doug Wilson defines it: “A Christian … is anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an authorized representative of the Christian church.”

After going back and forth in a several-times-a-day exchange, I have been pressed that I should back off my assertion that works have no saving merit in a sinner’s acceptance by God, because, this person said, “Wasn’t I aware that the great differences on this subject between Romanism and Protestantism is all due to a misunderstanding of the terms?”.  In other words, the whole Protestant Reformation was – (I’m not joking about this) – due to the fact that Martin Luther misunderstood the proper definitions of salvation / justification!

So all those papal bulls against the Reformers, all those tens of thousands of martyrs, all the disharmony over the past 450 years is because we Protestants just don’t understand terminology???  Wow.  You would think that someone would have just pulled one of those ignorant Reformers aside and explained that to them.  But that is getting off track.

The argument this Roman Catholic person makes is this:

1. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants agree that faith is absolutely necessary for salvation / justification

2. Both agree that God commands us to do good works.

Therefore … we agree!  Problem solved.  Let’s all put the past behind us and hold hands and walk off into the sunset as best friends.

Oh.  Wait a minute.  It seems it isn’t as simple as that.  There was, you see a little sticking point in our long correspondence.  It was when I brought up the little word that the Reformers made such a big deal of – sola.  Alone.  That changes everything.  On that point there was no yielding whatsoever by my friendly (most of the time, at least) Roman Catholic apologist.

Those ’solas’ were important in the days of the Reformation.  And they are no less so today.  And unless we want to go down as traitors to our Christian heritage, we can never lose them in our theology, and the application of it in our daily lives.

Salvation as proclaimed by the Scriptures Alone, given by Grace alone, appropriated through Faith alone, found in Christ Alone, and all for the glory of God Alone.  Amen.

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a
castaway.

Paul is not speaking of whipping his body, or any other action of self-debasement that will somehow merit him any acceptance with God.  He is speaking of the Christian life using the analogy of an athlete.   While I am no athlete, I have participated in some athletics and have some friends who were and are heavily involved in sports.  Not one I have met would “harm’ their body in any way in order to become better at their sport.  What they do is control (or discipline) their body, in order to win the prize.

And that is exactly what Paul is speaking of here.  A Christian must bring the passions of the flesh under control if he or she is going to run the race well and be useful in the service of the Lord.   Solomon put it well in Proverbs 16:32 – He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city”.

It is the “ruling of our spirit” that Paul is speaking of.  In other words, “Who is in control?  Your carnal desires or your spiritual?

* * * * * * * *

Here is the news report…

Pope John Paul II regularly whipped himself with a trouser belt that he kept in his wardrobe and signed a secret document saying that would resign if he became incurably ill, a book published today reveals.

It had long been rumoured that the Polish-born pontiff, who died five years ago, engaged in acts of penance and self-flagellation.

But the practice has now been confirmed by Monsignor Slawomir Oder, the Vatican “postulator” who has the task of reviewing John Paul’s life and preparing a case for him being made a saint.

In the new book, “Why he’s a saint”, Msgr Oder writes: “As members of the Pope’s close entourage heard with their own ears, Karol Wojtyla used to flagellate himself.

“In his wardrobe, in between all his robes, a special trouser belt hung on a coat hanger, which he used as a whip. He always took it with him when he went to Castel Gandolfo (the traditional summer residence of the popes outside Rome).”

In November a Polish nun claimed that when she stayed at Castel Gandolfo she often heard John Paul whipping himself.

“Several times he would put himself through bodily penance,” said Tobiana Sobodka, a nun from the Sacred Heart of Jesus order.

“We would hear it – we were in the next room at Castel Gandolfo. You could hear the sound of the blows when he flagellated himself.”

Self-flagellation is used by some Catholics to remind themselves of the agonies endured by Christ on the cross, in particular members of the controversial organisation Opus Dei.

Rest of article here.

The answer to that is found in ourselves.  We are fallen creatures.  Prior to Adam’s fall, we find there was communion between man and God.  The Genesis account intimates that it was regular, open and sincere.  One of the first effects of sin was to make man want to hide from God.  Adam and Eve did not want to talk with God like they used to.  Right here is possibly the greatest effect of sin on the human race: it not only brought in death and separates us from God, but it causes us not to desire to commune with God which is utterly necessary to have these barriers removed.

This brings me then to one great reason why prayer must be a matter of resolve, and why we must say, like David, “As for me, I will call upon God” (Psalm 55:16).

Why must we be resolved to pray?

Because it is not our natural inclination to pray

There is nothing within our fallen, human nature that inclines us to the spiritual exercise of prayer.  Prayer is pre-eminently a spiritual work.  In Romans 1:9, Paul wrote, “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers”.

There are many aspects of serving the Lord that can be done in a purely physical, fleshly manner: handing out tracts, witnessing to others, singing hymns and psalms, even preaching.  Admittedly, one can engage in a wide variety of “Christian work” without there being anything spiritual about it.  But prayer is first and foremost a spiritual exercise.  And that is why it is so hard to do!  Because only a regenerated man or woman will have the inclination to pray.

When Adam sinned, he immediately died spiritually.  He was in a moment estranged from the God who created him and with whom, up to that moment had communed together with Him, and delighted to do so.

It is far too common to hear professing Christians lament that they have not been able to pray for long periods of time – several days, even a week or more.  (Even worse is when men of God jest and joke about prayerlessness in themselves or others).  Now what makes this so serious, is that prayer is one of the signs that a soul has been converted.  Many eminent men of God have commented on this point, and I can add nothing more than to say this.  In my years of counseling others and looking back at my own personal experience, that without exception, every failure can be traced back to a lessening or, more often, a total ceasing of the prayer life of the individual.

With so much at stake, praying must not be left to times when you ‘feel like it’.  Most assuredly there are many, many times when Christians do not feel like praying.  And those are the times when prayer is most needful!  Prayer must not be left to an emotional or ritual motive.  If it is, it will be at best sporadic, and your walk with the Lord will be the same; on fire one day, cold and disinterested the next.

Be determined as David was that you will pray and call upon God.  Be resolved to be a man or woman of prayer.  In every situation, for all things and for all people.

When Paul wrote to the Philippians he told them to “Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication let your requests be made known unto God” (Phil. 4:6)

How often we face trials in our Christian life and rather than take the matter to the Lord, we hold on to the burden ourselves, and then start to lose assurance in a sovereign, all-wise, all-loving Father in heaven!  In other words we lose our confidence, and keep our cares.  That is living the Christian life all backwards.  God directs us to live otherwise.

One lesson that I have had to learn more than once is the importance of giving the Lord my cares, and growing in confidence in His sovereign ability to deal with every situation that I face.

Christian, you are to “hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:6), and to “(cast) all your cares upon Him, for He careth for you” (1 Peter 5:7).

It is His will that we should cast our cares on Him each day.

He also bids us not to cast our confidence away;

But oh! how foolishly we act when taken unaware,

We cast our confidence away, and carry all our care.

What are you holding on to today?  Your confidence or your cares?  It is the difference between victory and defeat.