02.28.07
I dont have the ability to send my children to state school.
A common objection to homeschooling is that people don’t think they have the ability to teach their children at home. However what we must realise is that it takes much more ability on the part of the parent to send their children to state school.
To do so one must know the state curriculum inside out and recognise each area in which it departs from the Word of God. Then in the limited time you have with your child after he returns from school you will have to set about explaining to him where the problem lies and what the Biblical answer is to the particular error. This goes for every subject on the curriculum. People often speak about counter educating in this way, but I wonder how much actually takes place. Perhaps the odd statement here or there. I also wonder if we have really begun to understand the extent and subtltity of the error that our children are being fed.
I for one would feel totally overwhelmed at the prospect of counter educating my children. Would it not be easier (not to mention more faithful to your covenant obligations) to simply instruct your child from a curriculum designed by godly men who have grounded everything in a Biblical view of the world?
G.B
02.26.07
A Puritan Description of Saving Faith
Below is a Puritan description of that act of faith whereby a sinner helplessly casts himself upon the ‘Promises of mercy in Christ Jesus’. The author is Robert Bolton, and the work from which it is taken is his General Directions for a Comfortable Walking with God.
“[Saving faith is a] resting upon the merit of Christ; an affiance, dependence, adherence, reliance, or if there be any other word expressing that act of an humble soul, whereby it casteth and reposeth itself only upon God’s promises in Christ, for the obtaining of remission of sins and everlasting life. In this act the poor soul, enlightened and affrighted with sight and sense of its sin and misery, and seeing an infinite impossibility of satisfying God for the one, or freeing itself from the other, by any means or merit in heaven or earth, but only by the propitiatory mediation of Jesus Christ; it throws itself into his arms, grasping fast about him, hides itself in the clefts of this rock, from the storms of God’s fiercest and fiery indignation; apprehends in him plentiful redemption and all-sufficiency of salvation, and, therefore, plies him with strong cries and tears for mercy; bespeaks him in all terms of confidence and affiance: My Lord and my God, my hope, my fortress, my rock, my strength, my salvation; save me, or I sink; hold me fast, or I am lost for ever. You may see sometimes a little infant, upon apprehension and approach of some sudden danger, how heartily and hastily it runs into the mother’s arms for succour and safety; even so a truly wounded soul, pursued by the terrors of the law, and frighted with the dreadful sight of God’s frowning countenance, flies with speed into the arms of its blessed Redeemer, clings inseparably unto his bleeding wounds for everlasting protection, and there rests upon the freeness of his love, merit of his passion, and truth of his promise, as upon an eternal rock, never to be removed; not the concurrent rage of all devils in hell, or powers of darkness, being ever able to make a divorce.”
G.M.
02.23.07
Family Religion and Education
The follwing is a quote from the preface to the 1658 edition of the Westminster confession.
‘Wherever thou goest thou wilt hear men crying of bad children – whereas inded the source must be sought a little higher. ’tis bad parents – that make bad children – and we cannot blame so much their untowardness as our own negligence in education… the Devil hath great spite at the kingdom of Christ, and he knoweth no such compendious way to crush it in the egg as by the perversion of youth and supplanting family duties. Religion was first hatched in families, and there the devil seeketh to crush it.’
The Devil will be aided in this great aim the more Christian Father’s abdicate their responsibility to be prophets priests and kings in their homes; and the more Christian mothers desire a career at the expense of the nurture of their children; the more they place their children into the hands of state controlled humanistic schools to be instructed in the philosophy of infidels. Look well to it then, as you may aiding the devil in his work.
G.B
02.07.07
Counsels of the Aged to the Young (5)
This is the fifth part of Archibald Alexander’s Counsels to the Young.
“10. LIVE not merely for yourselves, but also for the good of others. Selfishness contracts the soul, and hardens the heart. The man absorbed in selfish pursuits is incapable of the sweetest, noblest joys of which our nature is susceptible. The Author of our being has ordained laws, according to which the most exquisite pleasure is connected, not with the pursuit of our own happiness, but with the exercise of benevolence. On this principle it is, that he who labours wholly for the benefit of others, and as it were forgets himself, is far happier than the man who makes himself the centre of all his affections, the sole object of all his exertions. On this principle it was, that our Saviour said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ Resolve, therefore, to lead lives of usefulness… Be not afraid of diminishing your own happiness by seeking that of others…
11. Be faithful and conscientious in the discharge of all duties which arise out of the relations which you sustain to others… The duties of parents, of children, of brothers and sisters, of neighbours, of masters and servants, of teachers and pupils, of magistrates and citizens, of the learned professions, of trade, of rich and poor, occupy a very large portion of the time and attention of every man. And these furnish the proper test of character. ‘He who is faithful in little is faithful in much.’ And he who is not attentive to the daily recurring duties of his station, in vain claims the reputation of virtue or piety by splendid acts of public benefice. ‘Though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.’
12. EXERCISE incessant vigilance against the dangers and temptations by which you are surrounded, and by which you will certainly be assailed. These dangers are too numerous to be specified in detail, but I will mention a few. Guard solicitously against all approaches towards infidelity. Reject unbelieving thoughts and sceptical doubts from the beginning… Another danger against which you must be watchful is pleasure – sensual pleasure. Worldly amusements, however innocent they may appear, are replete with hidden dangers. These scenes exhilarate the spirits, and excite the imagination, until reason and conscience are hushed, and the real end of living is forgotten. For the sake of pleasure, everything important and sacred is neglected, and the most valuable part of human life wasted in unprofitable engagements. Beware then of the vortex of dissipation, and especially of the last approach towards the gulf of intemperance. On that slippery ground, many strong men have fallen, never to rise… Seek your happiness, dear youth, in the pursuit of useful objects and in the performance of duty, and then you will be safe, and will have no reason to envy the votaries of sensual pleasure.”
Part Five
G.M.
02.05.07
Andrew Melville (3) – A Forgotten Reformer.
The final part of a lecture delivered in the Free Church Seminary by Rev Ronald Mackenzie
Melville’s Legacy: Second Book of Discipline
Melville’s lasting legacy to the Church was the 2nd Book of Discipline. Composed chiefly by himself with the assistance of others, after long and deliberate discussion it was approved and adopted by the General Assembly under his moderatorship in 1578. A carefully reasoned document, it defines more clearly and exactly than the First Book of Discipline the parameters of Church government. (N.B.The First Book of Discipline was drawn up in the haste of the crisis occasioned by the collapse of the Roman Church organisation and the emergence of the fledgling Reformed Church and the urgent need to provide parliament with the framework of a visible church organisation reformed according to the Word of God).
The Second Book of Discipline emphasises the distinction between the spheres of civil and ecclesiastical power; that the former has for its direct and proper object the promoting of external peace and quiet in the nation, while the latter is concerned with directing men in matters of religion and conscience. Since Christ is the only King and Head of the Church, He has, in His Word, appointed a government in the church distinct from civil government to be exercised in His Name by His own authorised officers and not by civil magistrates or under their direction. Nevertheless, both civil and ecclesiastical governments are of God, and, if rightly used, tend to one end, viz., the glory of God and the welfare of the nation’s subjects. Yet they should co-operate within their respective spheres, helping and strengthening one another.
The Second Book of Discipline claims the right of church courts, as courts of Christ, to convene and settle business independent of the civil authorities, such courts being divided into sessions, presbyteries, synods and general assemblies, the church recognising no official higher than the teaching presbyter or minister of the gospel. But none were to be intruded into the ministry contrary to the will of the congregation. Among abuses the compilers of the Second Book of Discipline wished to see reformed was the abolition of lay patronage which tended to lead to intrusion and was incompatible with a lawful election and the assent of the people over whom the person was to be placed, ‘as the practice of the apostolical and primitive kirk and good order craves’.
Conclusion
When we remember that the object of King James by the changes he made through his scheming ‘kingcraft’ (which he boasted of) in the government of the Scottish Church was to make himself dictator in all matters of religion, and that his ultimate aim was, by means of the bishops, to overturn the civil liberties of the nation and to become absolute master of the consciences, properties and lives of his subjects, only then do we appreciate the debt we owe to Melville. For he was the first to discern the dangerous consequences it posed to the civil and religious liberties of his nation and to denounce and oppose the royal policy regardless of the cost in deprivation of office, imprisonment, and perpetual banishment from his native country. McCrie’s concluding remark in his biography of Melville sums up his true worth and rightful place in Scottish Church history: ‘Next to her Reformer who, under God, emancipated her from the degrading shackles of papal superstition and tyranny, I know no individual from whom Scotland has received such important services, or to whom she continues to owe so deep a debt of national respect and gratitude, as ANDREW MELVILLE. (vol.2.p.473).
Rev Ronald Mackenzie
02.01.07
Dawkins Delusion
Richard Dawkins’ book, ‘The God Delusion’ is reviewed in this address, ‘Dawkins’ Delusion.’ In the address David Silversides explains the unreasonableness of his rationale, and highlights for us the fallacy of his reasons for rejecting God, and explains biblically the real reason behind his ardent atheism.
1. Dawkins makes an irrational assumption throughout about human reason. He assumes that human reason is reliable, indeed ultimate, without rational grounds for doing so. He simply asserts what man is and is not.
He assumes that man is not a prejudiced sinner who hates God. He assumes man is not dependent upon God for revelation. The supremacy of human reason cannot be maintained without reasonable proof. Such proof is impossible since it would involve the use of that very reason whose supremacy is in question.
He wants to make these assumptions because he is a sinner. He does not ‘like to retain God in his knowledge’ (Rom 1:28 – see verses 19-28 as a whole).
2. Dawkins’ professed objectivity is a pretence. He begins his second chapter, before he has tried to prove anything, with a most unscientific tirade against God. He only becomes a scientist after he has made his mind up. He flatters those who agree with him and constantly insults those who do not. He regards atheists as persecuted and ignores the many Christians, and others, who have been slaughtered by atheistic dictators. He treats all theists as one group, but differentiates between atheists. He pretends that Stalin’s mass murders were unconnected with his atheism – he was just the wrong kind of atheist!
3. Dawkins does not understand biblical Christianity. He hardly ever interacts with Biblical Christianity known as Calvinism. Most examples used are from Roman Catholicism, Islam or Prosperity Gospel charlatans. He shadow boxes and does not face up to God as revealed in the Bible.
4. Dawkins continues to use terms that his atheistic presuppositions have rendered meaningless. He uses terms like ‘beauty’ or ‘happiness’ as if they still have meaning. Above all, he pretends that his thought allows real meaning to the idea of ‘good’ and ‘evil’. On his view, Hitler should be seen as just having more active natural selection instincts than most, but he regards him as evil – rightly so, but this only has meaning if we acknowledge God as universal law-giver (James 4:12, 1 John 3:4).
5. Dawkins’ pretence that something can come from nothing is dishonest.. He assumes evolution though he has publicly admitted he cannot prove its truth. The origin of the universe is unknowable by investigation since no man was there to observe. Divine revelation is needed (Job 38:1-4). Evolution is the unbeliever’s preferred guess and no more. But essential to atheistic evolution is the belief that initially something came from nothing without an existing eternal and infinite Creator as the cause. The scientific evidence for such an event is nil.
6. Dawkins is an atheist because he wants to be one. He has nothing to offer anyone except the idea that their life is a meaningless interruption of non-existence. Genesis 3 fully accounts for people like Richard Dawkins. It shows the desire to be independent of God, especially in the pursuit of knowledge (v.5) and the desire of sinners to evade God (vs. 8-10). Christians believe God, not Dawkins.
G.B.
