The Consequence of Secularism in Ulster Society
Secularism, professes a desire to separate the Church from the State; in reality what Secularism is advocating is to remove God’s Word from the state. We need to remind ourselves that we are living in a Christian country; we are part of society that has the Word of God as foundational to our lives. Christian values and virtues are part of our culture; our state has its unwritten constitution in association with Biblical principles; our justice system is based on the Christian moral code; every state body, in general, has association with or is in some way identified with the Word of God.
Recently Secularism has found its way into Ulster society; it spread its way like a killer virus during the period of the troubles among the Ulster people; now, thanks primarily to the peace process, Secularism is firmly embedded in the power sharing executive. Using the auspices of, human rights, equality legislation, pluralism, multiculturalism and political correctness, Secularism has set about demolishing the Biblical foundation that has sustained our society for so long.
The consequences of Secularism are all too apparent; Christian values that once exemplified our society, such as, ‘truth, honesty, justice, purity, virtue, praise, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and temperance’, have been wickedly carried away. Secularism has established the very opposite of these Christian virtues in our midst, such as; ‘adultery, fornication, idolatry, hatred, wrath, strife, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, unrighteousness, covetousness, maliciousness, deceit, backbiting, haters of God, disobedient to parents, covenant breakers and without natural affection.
Secularism seeks to control the state by legislation based on human reasoning which has placed a strangle hold on society; for example, the justice system has become inoperable due to exaggerated human rights legislation; equal rights and equal opportunities along with political correctness have ruined recruitment and employment; pluralism is robbing society of its identity. With the advance of Secularism, Churches are gathering in ecumenical huddles where they will rot in spiritual error as the approaching darkness of atheism gathers. It is time for evangelical Protestants to resist this monstrous evil and return to simple, saving ‘faith in God’.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Sunday 31 October 2010
Super Bug of Secularism Strikes Ulster Society
Super Bug of Secularism Strikes Ulster Society
A particularly virulent strain of Secularism has been identified here in Ulster; it appears that this deadly anti God virus has been incubating in our society over the period of the troubles; eventually it started to manifest itself just prior to the Good Friday Agreement. Then as the peace process gained momentum the Secular virus became more widespread; and by the time the St Andrews Agreement was signed, it had reached epidemic proportions. Experts believe that the virus was first diagnosed on mainland GB and has been carried into our Province by infected government legislation.
As this highly contagious Secular virus, has been studied under the microscope of Scripture, by some belonging to the Reformed Faith, it has been discovered that it attacks Society by separating the Word of God from government and the political structures; this leaves all government bodies without solid Biblical foundation and moral authority. Evangelical Protestantism is issuing a warning that, this Secular virus is already mutating into Secular Humanism and Atheism; it is feared that if it is not soon contained, that it may develop into a global pandemic called Apostasy, with devastating eternal consequences.
The main symptoms of the Secular virus are manifest when society exhibits;
1 An exaggerated view of human rights, coupled with a rash of political correctness.
2 A tendency to be obsessed by integration.
3 An unusual craving for equal rights.
4 An intense desire for a shared future with pluralist ideals.
5 An addiction to equal opportunities and multiculturalism.
6 An aversion of Biblical Christianity.
7 An allergic reaction to the existence of God.
Anyone showing these symptoms is urged to seek urgent Spiritual attention at the dispensary of God’s infallible Word. The full treatment package has been provided at great cost by the God of all grace, and is freely available from all good Reformed Faith centres. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ (Jhn3:16)
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
A particularly virulent strain of Secularism has been identified here in Ulster; it appears that this deadly anti God virus has been incubating in our society over the period of the troubles; eventually it started to manifest itself just prior to the Good Friday Agreement. Then as the peace process gained momentum the Secular virus became more widespread; and by the time the St Andrews Agreement was signed, it had reached epidemic proportions. Experts believe that the virus was first diagnosed on mainland GB and has been carried into our Province by infected government legislation.
As this highly contagious Secular virus, has been studied under the microscope of Scripture, by some belonging to the Reformed Faith, it has been discovered that it attacks Society by separating the Word of God from government and the political structures; this leaves all government bodies without solid Biblical foundation and moral authority. Evangelical Protestantism is issuing a warning that, this Secular virus is already mutating into Secular Humanism and Atheism; it is feared that if it is not soon contained, that it may develop into a global pandemic called Apostasy, with devastating eternal consequences.
The main symptoms of the Secular virus are manifest when society exhibits;
1 An exaggerated view of human rights, coupled with a rash of political correctness.
2 A tendency to be obsessed by integration.
3 An unusual craving for equal rights.
4 An intense desire for a shared future with pluralist ideals.
5 An addiction to equal opportunities and multiculturalism.
6 An aversion of Biblical Christianity.
7 An allergic reaction to the existence of God.
Anyone showing these symptoms is urged to seek urgent Spiritual attention at the dispensary of God’s infallible Word. The full treatment package has been provided at great cost by the God of all grace, and is freely available from all good Reformed Faith centres. ‘For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ (Jhn3:16)
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Wednesday 27 October 2010
The Systematic Secularising of Ulster Society
Systematic Secularising of Ulster Society
The tide of Secularism started creeping into our society at the beginning of the troubles; people were aware of some type of subtle, inexplicable change that was happening, but were uncertain as to what it was. As Ulster’s terrible troubles rolled on and on, many initiatives were advanced to bring an end to the violence and blood shed; as the search for peace was broadened so too did the underlying tide of Secularism begin to spread.
It was at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, that the first tangible evidence of Secularism emerged; it came to the fore at a time when Ulster society was so weak and vulnerable that there was little chance of credible opposition to its presence. Political discussions and decisions were subtly removed from the moral foundation and framework of God’s Word; pragmatism was governing debates on every conceivable topic. Human rights, equality, pluralism and multiculturalism all spilled out into our society that was hungry for change and was desperately searching for peace at any cost. Secularism, by this time was in its adolescent stage; but soon began to show signs of steady growth, as the Blair administration applied itself to Ulster’s problems.
Humanism and atheism became more vocal as Secularism developed further here; there were more and more arguments against the existence of God being advanced; people were throwing away the constraints of Biblical Christianity and seeking to live more to their own understanding. By the time the St Andrews Agreement was signed, Secularism was fully developed in Ulster; the Agreement itself, being based upon secular philosophy.
The power sharing executive at Stormont now bears testimony to Secularism in our Province, where God’s Word was once exalted; this will prove to be a very retrograde step for our society to have taken, as we will see in the next blog. In order for the executive posts to be filled and to operate in the Power Sharing Executive, politicians and church leaders, have moved away from long held and cherished Biblical principles, and have converted to Secularism.
I am reminded of the Word of God which declares, ‘There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death’ (Prov14:12) Ulster was the last bastion of Evangelical Protestantism left in GB; many have been the attempts to destroy our Protestant heritage; many have been the enemies of our Reformed Faith; however the moment our Protestant leaders lifted their eyes away from God’s Word the enemy of Secularism mobilised its evil forces, and with systematic organisation has swept into Ulster society with devastating consequences.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6).
The tide of Secularism started creeping into our society at the beginning of the troubles; people were aware of some type of subtle, inexplicable change that was happening, but were uncertain as to what it was. As Ulster’s terrible troubles rolled on and on, many initiatives were advanced to bring an end to the violence and blood shed; as the search for peace was broadened so too did the underlying tide of Secularism begin to spread.
It was at the time of the Good Friday Agreement, that the first tangible evidence of Secularism emerged; it came to the fore at a time when Ulster society was so weak and vulnerable that there was little chance of credible opposition to its presence. Political discussions and decisions were subtly removed from the moral foundation and framework of God’s Word; pragmatism was governing debates on every conceivable topic. Human rights, equality, pluralism and multiculturalism all spilled out into our society that was hungry for change and was desperately searching for peace at any cost. Secularism, by this time was in its adolescent stage; but soon began to show signs of steady growth, as the Blair administration applied itself to Ulster’s problems.
Humanism and atheism became more vocal as Secularism developed further here; there were more and more arguments against the existence of God being advanced; people were throwing away the constraints of Biblical Christianity and seeking to live more to their own understanding. By the time the St Andrews Agreement was signed, Secularism was fully developed in Ulster; the Agreement itself, being based upon secular philosophy.
The power sharing executive at Stormont now bears testimony to Secularism in our Province, where God’s Word was once exalted; this will prove to be a very retrograde step for our society to have taken, as we will see in the next blog. In order for the executive posts to be filled and to operate in the Power Sharing Executive, politicians and church leaders, have moved away from long held and cherished Biblical principles, and have converted to Secularism.
I am reminded of the Word of God which declares, ‘There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death’ (Prov14:12) Ulster was the last bastion of Evangelical Protestantism left in GB; many have been the attempts to destroy our Protestant heritage; many have been the enemies of our Reformed Faith; however the moment our Protestant leaders lifted their eyes away from God’s Word the enemy of Secularism mobilised its evil forces, and with systematic organisation has swept into Ulster society with devastating consequences.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6).
Monday 25 October 2010
Paisley's dig at Peter
Paisley’s dig at Peter
In response to the Belfast Telegraph's article on Ian Paisley’s new dig at his successor, Peter Robinson; I would like to offer the following comment. Rev Ian Paisley will have to do much more than hand out digs and hints, if ever this outrageous proposal of integrated education is to be dealt with. Mr Robinson, as Ed Curran suggests, may have used part of the proposal, which called for the removal of funding from Catholic education, as a means of uniting his party behind him, in a fashion associated with Paisleyism of old. The DUP leader may well have played a very clever political trick, which he thinks will be beneficial in the forth coming elections; however what he has actually done, is to open a can of worms for Paisleyism to sort out before evangelical Protestants.
What I mean by this is that through the Robinson proposal, Paisleyism is advocating integrated education in Ulster; this is the very antithesis of everything that Paisleyism stood for in the past; have they forgotten the messages preached on such texts as ‘Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,’ (2Cor6:17) In the past Rev Ivan Foster championed the cause of Independent Christian schools as an alternative to integrated secular based education; now the Free Presbyterian Chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee supports his DUP leader’s proposal, by calling it ‘forward-looking and inclusive’.
In the Robinson proposal, Paisleyism is perceived to be suggesting that a commission be established to bring about the integration of both traditions, Catholic and Protestant. This makes an entire mockery of their former separatist stand against ecumenism; moreover, this proposal brings into question their former stand against apostasy and spiritual compromise, because it necessitates the Reformed Faith to negotiate a compromise position with Roman Catholicism on the matter of assembly and religious education.
When Rev Brian McClung was asked to comment on the proposal of integrated education, he tactfully supported the part that suggested the withdrawal of funding from Catholic education, but did not comment directly on the proposal of integrated education.
Clearly, explanations and straight answers are required from both wings of Paisleyism on the great controversy that has arisen over the proposal of integrated education. The DUP must clarify what they have proposed on such an important subject as education; while at the same time the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster must show consistency with their former separatist position, not only with regard to this proposal but also with regard to support and participation in a power sharing executive that includes former unrepentant terrorists; these are moral issues worthy of urgent consideration.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
In response to the Belfast Telegraph's article on Ian Paisley’s new dig at his successor, Peter Robinson; I would like to offer the following comment. Rev Ian Paisley will have to do much more than hand out digs and hints, if ever this outrageous proposal of integrated education is to be dealt with. Mr Robinson, as Ed Curran suggests, may have used part of the proposal, which called for the removal of funding from Catholic education, as a means of uniting his party behind him, in a fashion associated with Paisleyism of old. The DUP leader may well have played a very clever political trick, which he thinks will be beneficial in the forth coming elections; however what he has actually done, is to open a can of worms for Paisleyism to sort out before evangelical Protestants.
What I mean by this is that through the Robinson proposal, Paisleyism is advocating integrated education in Ulster; this is the very antithesis of everything that Paisleyism stood for in the past; have they forgotten the messages preached on such texts as ‘Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,’ (2Cor6:17) In the past Rev Ivan Foster championed the cause of Independent Christian schools as an alternative to integrated secular based education; now the Free Presbyterian Chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee supports his DUP leader’s proposal, by calling it ‘forward-looking and inclusive’.
In the Robinson proposal, Paisleyism is perceived to be suggesting that a commission be established to bring about the integration of both traditions, Catholic and Protestant. This makes an entire mockery of their former separatist stand against ecumenism; moreover, this proposal brings into question their former stand against apostasy and spiritual compromise, because it necessitates the Reformed Faith to negotiate a compromise position with Roman Catholicism on the matter of assembly and religious education.
When Rev Brian McClung was asked to comment on the proposal of integrated education, he tactfully supported the part that suggested the withdrawal of funding from Catholic education, but did not comment directly on the proposal of integrated education.
Clearly, explanations and straight answers are required from both wings of Paisleyism on the great controversy that has arisen over the proposal of integrated education. The DUP must clarify what they have proposed on such an important subject as education; while at the same time the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster must show consistency with their former separatist position, not only with regard to this proposal but also with regard to support and participation in a power sharing executive that includes former unrepentant terrorists; these are moral issues worthy of urgent consideration.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Paisley's Parlance
Paisley’s Parlance
I read Rev Ian Paisley’s Newsletter article, ‘Digging our way out of recession’, with concern; the comments that he made, were of a completely secular nature, without reference to help that is available from Almighty God. This is quite remarkable, judging by the gravity of the subject matter and by the Christian profession of the writer.
With regard to the global recession, it was man’s rebellion and sin against God that created such an environment where selfishness, greed and the love of mammon prevailed; an environment such as this pushed God to the side and allowed borrowing to spiral out of control. In this regard, as Mr Paisley puts it, ‘digging is an activity either of hope or despair’; to dig in search of God and to search for His will, is indeed hopeful; for man to try and dig himself out of sin is hopeless and will gender despair.
Rev Ian Paisley, said, with respect to the Robinson proposal on integrated education, that there should be a ‘few areas roped off’ and a ‘site map laid out’ before the dig should commence. This is weak drivel coming from a man that once preached separation from any form of compromise with the Church of Rome; moreover, such had been the concern amongst Free Presbyterians against integrated education, that Independent Christian Schools were established. The Robinson proposal clearly states that, a commission could be established to look at ways of accommodating both sides regarding religious education and assembly practices.
Since God’s call to evangelical Protestants, is to come out of the camps of compromise and error; then spread out the site map of God’s Word, and rope off any proposal for a secular based education system. Rev Ian Paisley said in conclusion to his Newsletter article, ‘sometimes I just don’t dig it’; can I say, as a former Free Presbyterian licenced minister, after having read the article, ‘I just don’t dig it’.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
I read Rev Ian Paisley’s Newsletter article, ‘Digging our way out of recession’, with concern; the comments that he made, were of a completely secular nature, without reference to help that is available from Almighty God. This is quite remarkable, judging by the gravity of the subject matter and by the Christian profession of the writer.
With regard to the global recession, it was man’s rebellion and sin against God that created such an environment where selfishness, greed and the love of mammon prevailed; an environment such as this pushed God to the side and allowed borrowing to spiral out of control. In this regard, as Mr Paisley puts it, ‘digging is an activity either of hope or despair’; to dig in search of God and to search for His will, is indeed hopeful; for man to try and dig himself out of sin is hopeless and will gender despair.
Rev Ian Paisley, said, with respect to the Robinson proposal on integrated education, that there should be a ‘few areas roped off’ and a ‘site map laid out’ before the dig should commence. This is weak drivel coming from a man that once preached separation from any form of compromise with the Church of Rome; moreover, such had been the concern amongst Free Presbyterians against integrated education, that Independent Christian Schools were established. The Robinson proposal clearly states that, a commission could be established to look at ways of accommodating both sides regarding religious education and assembly practices.
Since God’s call to evangelical Protestants, is to come out of the camps of compromise and error; then spread out the site map of God’s Word, and rope off any proposal for a secular based education system. Rev Ian Paisley said in conclusion to his Newsletter article, ‘sometimes I just don’t dig it’; can I say, as a former Free Presbyterian licenced minister, after having read the article, ‘I just don’t dig it’.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Tuesday 19 October 2010
Smoke Screen to Cover Paisleyism
Smoke Screen to Cover Paisleyism
With regard to the article carried in the Belfast Newsletter yesterday, ‘Funding of Catholic schools must end’, it appears that Rev Brian McClung is cherry picking the DUP leader's comments. Peter Robinson, clearly proposed integrated education; he said, ‘We cannot hope to move beyond our present community divisions while our young people are educated separately’; in fact he recommended the establishment of a commission to examine a way of bringing about integration.
Perhaps Rev McClung would be kind enough to respond to the fact that Mr Robinson has proposed an integrated education system in Protestant Ulster; this is a complete reversal of the policies and practices of Paisleyism not so long ago. I just wonder if Rev McClung’s comments are an intended smoke screen to conceal the embarrassing position that the Free Presbyterian Church finds itself in; if anyone other than the DUP proposed integrated education, Free Presbyterians would object in the strongest possible terms; so what is the matter now?.
I do understand that Rev McClung was speaking in a personal capacity; however, was this in respect of the Free Presbyterian Church or with respect to, Administrator of the Independent Christian School in Newtownabbey? It matters not the amount of spin that is evidently being applied; the bare facts are that Paisleyism has compromised its once separatist position, and in the words of the Free Presbyterian chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee, Mervyn Storey, they have become, ‘forward looking and inclusive’, how very ecumenical.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
With regard to the article carried in the Belfast Newsletter yesterday, ‘Funding of Catholic schools must end’, it appears that Rev Brian McClung is cherry picking the DUP leader's comments. Peter Robinson, clearly proposed integrated education; he said, ‘We cannot hope to move beyond our present community divisions while our young people are educated separately’; in fact he recommended the establishment of a commission to examine a way of bringing about integration.
Perhaps Rev McClung would be kind enough to respond to the fact that Mr Robinson has proposed an integrated education system in Protestant Ulster; this is a complete reversal of the policies and practices of Paisleyism not so long ago. I just wonder if Rev McClung’s comments are an intended smoke screen to conceal the embarrassing position that the Free Presbyterian Church finds itself in; if anyone other than the DUP proposed integrated education, Free Presbyterians would object in the strongest possible terms; so what is the matter now?.
I do understand that Rev McClung was speaking in a personal capacity; however, was this in respect of the Free Presbyterian Church or with respect to, Administrator of the Independent Christian School in Newtownabbey? It matters not the amount of spin that is evidently being applied; the bare facts are that Paisleyism has compromised its once separatist position, and in the words of the Free Presbyterian chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee, Mervyn Storey, they have become, ‘forward looking and inclusive’, how very ecumenical.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Monday 18 October 2010
Integrated Education
Integrated education – ‘forward-looking and inclusive’??????
Mervyn Storey, chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee has responded to his leader’s proposal for integrated education as ‘forward-looking and inclusive’. This sort of comment from a DUP Free Presbyterian is indicative of the duplicity and hypocrisy that is presently associated with Paisleyism. Of all people, Mr Storey should know better than to make such an outlandish comment as this; he knows perfectly well what the position of his party and church had been with regard to separation. He is bound to have heard his former moderator preach against association and union with the Church of Rome; he must have heard of the doctrine of separation preached in his church; he must be aware that his own church runs an independent Christian school; and now he supports his leader’s proposals for integrated education.
As a former licensed minister in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, I can well remember how that Independent Christian Education was high on the agenda; this was so when the new curriculum was introduced; there was a perspective amongst Free Presbyterians, that their children must have an education based on the principles and standards of the Word of God. Has Paisleyism turned away so far from these once cherished principles that Mr Storey can publicly support integrated education?
As if is was not bad enough to support such a proposal as Mr Robinson has made; it is exceedingly much worse when the proposal is supported by Secularist argument; Mr Robinson said, ‘What I do object to is the state providing and funding church schools’. These comments do have a Secular connotation, of separating church and state, or to be more specific, distancing the Word of God from government and ultimately from society as well.
Mr Storey describes opponents of integrated education as ‘backward-looking and predictable’; therefore as ‘backward-looking’ I do remember what Paisleyism once stood for; furthermore it is ‘predictable’ that any evangelical Protestant would resist and condemn such an ungodly proposal for integrated education.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Mervyn Storey, chairman of the Assembly’s Education Committee has responded to his leader’s proposal for integrated education as ‘forward-looking and inclusive’. This sort of comment from a DUP Free Presbyterian is indicative of the duplicity and hypocrisy that is presently associated with Paisleyism. Of all people, Mr Storey should know better than to make such an outlandish comment as this; he knows perfectly well what the position of his party and church had been with regard to separation. He is bound to have heard his former moderator preach against association and union with the Church of Rome; he must have heard of the doctrine of separation preached in his church; he must be aware that his own church runs an independent Christian school; and now he supports his leader’s proposals for integrated education.
As a former licensed minister in the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, I can well remember how that Independent Christian Education was high on the agenda; this was so when the new curriculum was introduced; there was a perspective amongst Free Presbyterians, that their children must have an education based on the principles and standards of the Word of God. Has Paisleyism turned away so far from these once cherished principles that Mr Storey can publicly support integrated education?
As if is was not bad enough to support such a proposal as Mr Robinson has made; it is exceedingly much worse when the proposal is supported by Secularist argument; Mr Robinson said, ‘What I do object to is the state providing and funding church schools’. These comments do have a Secular connotation, of separating church and state, or to be more specific, distancing the Word of God from government and ultimately from society as well.
Mr Storey describes opponents of integrated education as ‘backward-looking and predictable’; therefore as ‘backward-looking’ I do remember what Paisleyism once stood for; furthermore it is ‘predictable’ that any evangelical Protestant would resist and condemn such an ungodly proposal for integrated education.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Sunday 17 October 2010
From Separation to Integration.
From Separation to Integration
First Minister, Peter Robinson has called for an end to segregation in schools; he proposes a push towards an integrated education system. As a means to achieving such a goal, Mr Robinson has advocated the establishment of a commission, to look into ways in which this integration could be aided. The DUP leader went on to say that he objected to ‘the state providing and funding state schools’.
There are at least two main issues that arise here; firstly, Mr Robinson has broken from the historical position of Paisleyism, that had consistently argued against integration of Roman Catholics and Protestants and had insisted on separation. Does this now mean that the DUP have broken free from Paisleyism? This proposal also puts the chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Mervyn Storey, in a very difficult position; as an office bearer in a Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, Mr Storey, will know that his Church insists on the Word of God being foundational to education, so how can he be in agreement with his party leader?
Secondly, Mr Robinson is clearly following a Secularist line of thought as he advances his proposal; what he is effectively doing, is, taking religion out of education while at the same time, separating religion from the state. To attempt either or both, is to destroy evangelical Protestantism by removing the principles and standards of The Word of God, which are vital to society in general and to education in particular; it is impossible for any Protestant society to stand if the foundation of Biblical truth and doctrine is compromised or removed.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
First Minister, Peter Robinson has called for an end to segregation in schools; he proposes a push towards an integrated education system. As a means to achieving such a goal, Mr Robinson has advocated the establishment of a commission, to look into ways in which this integration could be aided. The DUP leader went on to say that he objected to ‘the state providing and funding state schools’.
There are at least two main issues that arise here; firstly, Mr Robinson has broken from the historical position of Paisleyism, that had consistently argued against integration of Roman Catholics and Protestants and had insisted on separation. Does this now mean that the DUP have broken free from Paisleyism? This proposal also puts the chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Mervyn Storey, in a very difficult position; as an office bearer in a Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, Mr Storey, will know that his Church insists on the Word of God being foundational to education, so how can he be in agreement with his party leader?
Secondly, Mr Robinson is clearly following a Secularist line of thought as he advances his proposal; what he is effectively doing, is, taking religion out of education while at the same time, separating religion from the state. To attempt either or both, is to destroy evangelical Protestantism by removing the principles and standards of The Word of God, which are vital to society in general and to education in particular; it is impossible for any Protestant society to stand if the foundation of Biblical truth and doctrine is compromised or removed.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Saturday 16 October 2010
DUP Supports Secularism
DUP Supports Secularism
DUP leader Peter Robinson has called for an end to school segregation; he said, ‘The education of Protestant and Catholics in separate schools in Northern Ireland is a benign form of apartheid; ‘What I do object to is the state providing and funding church schools.’ This is indeed a bold speech by the DUP leader; it cuts right across what Paisleyism had stood for in the past; it reveals that the seeds of Secularism, which Ian Paisley planted as he entered the Power Sharing Executive, are now being cultivated by his own party leader.
Such a Secularist agenda will uproot Biblical Protestantism from our society and leave it a prey to Humanism and Atheism; Christian principles and standards are foundational to education in a Protestant Christian country and must not be compromised. Mr Robinson recommended that a commission is set up to examine a way of bringing about integration; is this a stunt to provide jobs for redundant MLAS? Or is it an attempt to do what ecumenism has failed to so far; to return Biblical Protestantism to the Roman fold.
I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge to establish a totally secular society and ultimately to destroy Biblical Protestantism in Ulster. This DUP proposal reeks to high heaven of Protestant betrayal and Biblical treachery; it is inconceivable to imagine that Protestant parents would allow their children to be educated in an unscriptural and ungodly environment. The Scriptures teach, ‘Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.’ Prov22:6. Just imagine what it would be like to send your child to a school that did not have or hold Christian principles and standards; it would be an outrage to any evangelical Protestant.
It is very difficult for evangelical Protestants to understand the enigma of Paisleyism at present; in the past it demanded separation from political and spiritual compromise; now it advocates the complete opposite, integration. The only possible conclusion to be reached is that compromise and duplicity have taken hold and that apostasy is growing at an alarming rate.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
DUP leader Peter Robinson has called for an end to school segregation; he said, ‘The education of Protestant and Catholics in separate schools in Northern Ireland is a benign form of apartheid; ‘What I do object to is the state providing and funding church schools.’ This is indeed a bold speech by the DUP leader; it cuts right across what Paisleyism had stood for in the past; it reveals that the seeds of Secularism, which Ian Paisley planted as he entered the Power Sharing Executive, are now being cultivated by his own party leader.
Such a Secularist agenda will uproot Biblical Protestantism from our society and leave it a prey to Humanism and Atheism; Christian principles and standards are foundational to education in a Protestant Christian country and must not be compromised. Mr Robinson recommended that a commission is set up to examine a way of bringing about integration; is this a stunt to provide jobs for redundant MLAS? Or is it an attempt to do what ecumenism has failed to so far; to return Biblical Protestantism to the Roman fold.
I believe that this is the thin end of the wedge to establish a totally secular society and ultimately to destroy Biblical Protestantism in Ulster. This DUP proposal reeks to high heaven of Protestant betrayal and Biblical treachery; it is inconceivable to imagine that Protestant parents would allow their children to be educated in an unscriptural and ungodly environment. The Scriptures teach, ‘Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.’ Prov22:6. Just imagine what it would be like to send your child to a school that did not have or hold Christian principles and standards; it would be an outrage to any evangelical Protestant.
It is very difficult for evangelical Protestants to understand the enigma of Paisleyism at present; in the past it demanded separation from political and spiritual compromise; now it advocates the complete opposite, integration. The only possible conclusion to be reached is that compromise and duplicity have taken hold and that apostasy is growing at an alarming rate.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Thursday 14 October 2010
Rescue at Camp Hope
Rescue at Camp Hope
The world looked on in amazement and joy as the trapped Chilean miners are hoisted from the depths one by one; such a rescue mission as this will undoubtedly go down in history as an extraordinary achievement and a remarkable demonstration of man’s compassion for his fellow; the rescue of these trapped miners provides a great illustration of God’s so great salvation.
The words of psalm 40:2 ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’ are most appropriate here; the Psalmist is testifying as to how that God had brought him up out of a deep pit; these words convey the thought of a great rescue mission, far exceeding anything accomplished by human agency.
The Plight of these trapped miners parallels that of the unsaved sinner; they were considered lost, without hope, trapped, in darkness, unable to help or free themselves, they could not work their way up; they had no future and time was fast running out; if they were not rescued, then death would be guaranteed. No amount of will power or resolve could alter their circumstances; they were held fast and could not break free.
If they were ever to be freed from that horrible pit of pain and death, then help and deliverance would have to come from above; someone on a higher plain would have to intervene on their behalf. This is a perfect picture as to how God intervened on the behalf of fallen, ruined and helpless sinners; yes there was someone that really cared. ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’
In order for the Chilean miners to live, a rescue Plan had to be formulated by someone above; the plan would have to guarantee salvation to the miners in order for them to believe in it; a prototype would not do, this plan would have to be guaranteed to bring hope to the hopeless. Such a plan, of itself, could not deliver, if it were to be successful, then it must be implemented; this would involve cost, it would necessitate sacrifice.
The plan was to reach and lift to safety each individual miner; and so the great rescue plan was implemented. Isn’t the parallel striking with that of God’s so great salvation; God, knowing how and where to reach the fallen sinner, planned to save them; It cost God the very best that heaven could afford, the person of God’s eternally begotten Son; ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son’ it was the Lord Jesus Christ that offered Himself a perfect sacrifice to put away sin, providing salvation to the whosoever. ‘Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him’. It was God that planned and it was God that implemented that plan of salvation; that is why it is perfectly reliable and has never failed. ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’.
It would take great Power, both to reach and to lift the Chilean miners to the surface; if the power failed then the entire operation would be thrown into jeopardy and no one would be saved. The miners would have been encouraged when the rescue shaft was completed and they saw the capsule arrive; however they would have never reached the surface had they not entered the capsule and trusted in the power above to lift them higher; their rescue was one at a time, it was not universal.
This brings an even greater parallel with God’s so great salvation into focus; yes, the power to reach the lost sinner belongs to God. It is only when the sinner as an individual, recognises their Plight that they step towards help; it is only when they believe the Plan that they begin to look up; and when they see the Power of God reach them, then they must respond.
Only a fool would refuse such an offer of salvation, only a fool would remain in darkness and despair when such power to save was available. The miners are alive today because they stepped into the capsule; they are alive today because they depended unreservedly on the power available to lift them to safety; what is more the miners were completely rescued, they were brought right up to the surface, mission accomplished.
When the power of God reaches a sinner, and turning away from sin, they avail themselves of that offer of mercy and wholeheartedly depend on that power to save; then they are lifted out of darkness into light and granted a glorious standing in Christ. They are not saved in stages, they are not delivered by instalments, glory to God, they are lifted completely and powerfully, out of guilt and sin; they are redeemed, pardoned and are found new creatures in Christ. ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
The world looked on in amazement and joy as the trapped Chilean miners are hoisted from the depths one by one; such a rescue mission as this will undoubtedly go down in history as an extraordinary achievement and a remarkable demonstration of man’s compassion for his fellow; the rescue of these trapped miners provides a great illustration of God’s so great salvation.
The words of psalm 40:2 ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’ are most appropriate here; the Psalmist is testifying as to how that God had brought him up out of a deep pit; these words convey the thought of a great rescue mission, far exceeding anything accomplished by human agency.
The Plight of these trapped miners parallels that of the unsaved sinner; they were considered lost, without hope, trapped, in darkness, unable to help or free themselves, they could not work their way up; they had no future and time was fast running out; if they were not rescued, then death would be guaranteed. No amount of will power or resolve could alter their circumstances; they were held fast and could not break free.
If they were ever to be freed from that horrible pit of pain and death, then help and deliverance would have to come from above; someone on a higher plain would have to intervene on their behalf. This is a perfect picture as to how God intervened on the behalf of fallen, ruined and helpless sinners; yes there was someone that really cared. ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’
In order for the Chilean miners to live, a rescue Plan had to be formulated by someone above; the plan would have to guarantee salvation to the miners in order for them to believe in it; a prototype would not do, this plan would have to be guaranteed to bring hope to the hopeless. Such a plan, of itself, could not deliver, if it were to be successful, then it must be implemented; this would involve cost, it would necessitate sacrifice.
The plan was to reach and lift to safety each individual miner; and so the great rescue plan was implemented. Isn’t the parallel striking with that of God’s so great salvation; God, knowing how and where to reach the fallen sinner, planned to save them; It cost God the very best that heaven could afford, the person of God’s eternally begotten Son; ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son’ it was the Lord Jesus Christ that offered Himself a perfect sacrifice to put away sin, providing salvation to the whosoever. ‘Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost, that come unto God by him’. It was God that planned and it was God that implemented that plan of salvation; that is why it is perfectly reliable and has never failed. ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’.
It would take great Power, both to reach and to lift the Chilean miners to the surface; if the power failed then the entire operation would be thrown into jeopardy and no one would be saved. The miners would have been encouraged when the rescue shaft was completed and they saw the capsule arrive; however they would have never reached the surface had they not entered the capsule and trusted in the power above to lift them higher; their rescue was one at a time, it was not universal.
This brings an even greater parallel with God’s so great salvation into focus; yes, the power to reach the lost sinner belongs to God. It is only when the sinner as an individual, recognises their Plight that they step towards help; it is only when they believe the Plan that they begin to look up; and when they see the Power of God reach them, then they must respond.
Only a fool would refuse such an offer of salvation, only a fool would remain in darkness and despair when such power to save was available. The miners are alive today because they stepped into the capsule; they are alive today because they depended unreservedly on the power available to lift them to safety; what is more the miners were completely rescued, they were brought right up to the surface, mission accomplished.
When the power of God reaches a sinner, and turning away from sin, they avail themselves of that offer of mercy and wholeheartedly depend on that power to save; then they are lifted out of darkness into light and granted a glorious standing in Christ. They are not saved in stages, they are not delivered by instalments, glory to God, they are lifted completely and powerfully, out of guilt and sin; they are redeemed, pardoned and are found new creatures in Christ. ‘He brought me up also out of an horrible pit’.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Sunday 10 October 2010
Paisleyism -- 'Art thou the man of God' [5]
Paisleyism
‘Art thou the man of God’? [The Payment]
The man of God, not withstanding the rebuke from his own party colleague, left Bethel riding high; he may have arrived at Bethel on foot, but now after having been elevated, he was going forward in style, astride an ass. So Paisleyism left St Andrews riding high; they arrived into government with their fellow secular members; not withstanding the leadership knew perfectly well that God must have been greatly offended at their actions.
With his back upon Bethel, his fellowship with his former party colleague broken, with his fellowship and service to God greatly compromised, the man of God rode out into uncharted waters and a very uncertain future. Not far down the path of compromise and duplicity a lion met him; he was removed swiftly from his high position by a greater power; he was toppled from his lofty position and was suddenly in the grip of the enemy. No sooner had Paisleyism entered into power sharing government with criminals, than their esteemed leader was stood down from his position of moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church; afterward, in a relatively short term as first minister of the power sharing executive, he resigned his position; the lion had met with Paisleyism. The price of embracing secularism was high indeed; the payment of such a debt was swiftly exacted. It is of course interesting, that the insignia of the secular wing of Paisleyism is that of a lion; it was that very wing that has dealt the death blow to Paisleyism.
The deadly attack against the man of God from Judah received complete press coverage in Bethel; the political and religious fallout would have been carefully analysed and examined; but when the old prophet received the news, he worked quickly to have a damage limitation exercise put in place. He knew full well that the stroke of God had fallen on the man of God for his disobedience and rebellion; and he made haste to tidy up the loose ends; he wanted at all costs to conceal the real truth of the matter, that he was in fact the reason for the downfall of the man of God. He found the man of God’s remains, carried them back to Bethel, and arranged the burial in his own grave; the whole community mourned over the loss of their former colleague.
As the secular wing of Paisleyism pursued the damage limitation exercise at Hillsborough, by opening the way for devolution of policing and justice, one cannot help but conclude that the price for sacrificing evangelical Protestantism on the altar of secularism was high indeed. Paisleyism, ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
‘Art thou the man of God’? [The Payment]
The man of God, not withstanding the rebuke from his own party colleague, left Bethel riding high; he may have arrived at Bethel on foot, but now after having been elevated, he was going forward in style, astride an ass. So Paisleyism left St Andrews riding high; they arrived into government with their fellow secular members; not withstanding the leadership knew perfectly well that God must have been greatly offended at their actions.
With his back upon Bethel, his fellowship with his former party colleague broken, with his fellowship and service to God greatly compromised, the man of God rode out into uncharted waters and a very uncertain future. Not far down the path of compromise and duplicity a lion met him; he was removed swiftly from his high position by a greater power; he was toppled from his lofty position and was suddenly in the grip of the enemy. No sooner had Paisleyism entered into power sharing government with criminals, than their esteemed leader was stood down from his position of moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church; afterward, in a relatively short term as first minister of the power sharing executive, he resigned his position; the lion had met with Paisleyism. The price of embracing secularism was high indeed; the payment of such a debt was swiftly exacted. It is of course interesting, that the insignia of the secular wing of Paisleyism is that of a lion; it was that very wing that has dealt the death blow to Paisleyism.
The deadly attack against the man of God from Judah received complete press coverage in Bethel; the political and religious fallout would have been carefully analysed and examined; but when the old prophet received the news, he worked quickly to have a damage limitation exercise put in place. He knew full well that the stroke of God had fallen on the man of God for his disobedience and rebellion; and he made haste to tidy up the loose ends; he wanted at all costs to conceal the real truth of the matter, that he was in fact the reason for the downfall of the man of God. He found the man of God’s remains, carried them back to Bethel, and arranged the burial in his own grave; the whole community mourned over the loss of their former colleague.
As the secular wing of Paisleyism pursued the damage limitation exercise at Hillsborough, by opening the way for devolution of policing and justice, one cannot help but conclude that the price for sacrificing evangelical Protestantism on the altar of secularism was high indeed. Paisleyism, ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Paisleyism -- 'Art thou the man of God' [4]
Paisleyism
‘Art thou the man of God’? [The Pact]
The old prophet’s message had influenced the man of God to the extent that he stepped out of God’s will; he left off following the LORD and began to follow a man; he compromised his fellowship with God and followed on to have fellowship with fallen man at the place of the altar of idolatry. ‘So he went back with him’; the man of God was now in step with the old prophet; the scripture saith, ‘Can two walk together except they be agreed’, the evidence is clear enough, there was agreement here; the man of God was in agreement with the prophet of Bethel. So the man of God did a complete uturn; he went back on his original statements and principles; what a picture of Paisleyism prior to the St Andrews agreement; they vowed never to share government with unrepentant terrorists; they vowed to hate the things that Christ hates and to love the things that Christ loves; they said that they would never agree to Dublin involvement; what is more, Paisleyism had stood on the principles of Biblical separation and affirmed that they would never fellowship with ungodliness of any kind.
But turn the man of God did; walking over broken promises and abandoned principles he made his way to the home ground of the old prophet. At Bethel the man of God stretched his feet under the table at Bethel; very much the same way that Paisleyism sat at the St Andrews negotiating table. ‘So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water’. The man of God ‘went back’; he went back on his word, he went back on his principles, he went back from the truth to fellowship with error. He put his own carnal appetite first, he ‘did eat bread’ at the table of deceit; he came under the roof of falsehood and he drank the water of confusion.
Paisleyism entered the negotiations at St Andrews in the same way that the man of God entered the old prophet’s house at Bethel; it was under the cover of a great conspiracy. When the man of God turned back from under the oak, it was on the strength of a lie; ‘But he lied to him’. The secular wing of Paisleyism had sold the lie, and the whole group went back to negotiations after the Good Friday agreement, with secular powers and parties around the negotiating table at St Andrews. The man of God enjoyed the hospitality and fellowship that the old prophet offered at Bethel; he very well, may have considered that his prospects looked very promising; after all he was accepted by his new host, he was in an historic spiritual setting, Bethel, the place where Abram had pitched his tent; he must have thought within himself that personal success was in sight. Paisleyism must have had similar thoughts at St Andrews; they no longer saw the Ulster Unionists as a threat, they would have imagined that electoral victory as the largest party was guaranteed; an so the secular pact was made.
What the man of God never suspected, was that reproof and rebuke would come so quickly from his own party colleague; ‘And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back: And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and has not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water;’ Here the man of God was solemnly reproved in Bethel for his rebellion against the commandment of the LORD. H e must have remembered how Saul must have felt when he was reproved by Samuel for rebelling against the commandment of God in sparing Amalek. There were those within Paisleyism that rebuked the leadership for intending to enter power sharing with unrepentant terrorists; sadly to no avail. In the next blog we will look at the [Payment] ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
‘Art thou the man of God’? [The Pact]
The old prophet’s message had influenced the man of God to the extent that he stepped out of God’s will; he left off following the LORD and began to follow a man; he compromised his fellowship with God and followed on to have fellowship with fallen man at the place of the altar of idolatry. ‘So he went back with him’; the man of God was now in step with the old prophet; the scripture saith, ‘Can two walk together except they be agreed’, the evidence is clear enough, there was agreement here; the man of God was in agreement with the prophet of Bethel. So the man of God did a complete uturn; he went back on his original statements and principles; what a picture of Paisleyism prior to the St Andrews agreement; they vowed never to share government with unrepentant terrorists; they vowed to hate the things that Christ hates and to love the things that Christ loves; they said that they would never agree to Dublin involvement; what is more, Paisleyism had stood on the principles of Biblical separation and affirmed that they would never fellowship with ungodliness of any kind.
But turn the man of God did; walking over broken promises and abandoned principles he made his way to the home ground of the old prophet. At Bethel the man of God stretched his feet under the table at Bethel; very much the same way that Paisleyism sat at the St Andrews negotiating table. ‘So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water’. The man of God ‘went back’; he went back on his word, he went back on his principles, he went back from the truth to fellowship with error. He put his own carnal appetite first, he ‘did eat bread’ at the table of deceit; he came under the roof of falsehood and he drank the water of confusion.
Paisleyism entered the negotiations at St Andrews in the same way that the man of God entered the old prophet’s house at Bethel; it was under the cover of a great conspiracy. When the man of God turned back from under the oak, it was on the strength of a lie; ‘But he lied to him’. The secular wing of Paisleyism had sold the lie, and the whole group went back to negotiations after the Good Friday agreement, with secular powers and parties around the negotiating table at St Andrews. The man of God enjoyed the hospitality and fellowship that the old prophet offered at Bethel; he very well, may have considered that his prospects looked very promising; after all he was accepted by his new host, he was in an historic spiritual setting, Bethel, the place where Abram had pitched his tent; he must have thought within himself that personal success was in sight. Paisleyism must have had similar thoughts at St Andrews; they no longer saw the Ulster Unionists as a threat, they would have imagined that electoral victory as the largest party was guaranteed; an so the secular pact was made.
What the man of God never suspected, was that reproof and rebuke would come so quickly from his own party colleague; ‘And it came to pass, as they sat at the table, that the word of the LORD came unto the prophet that brought him back: And he cried unto the man of God that came from Judah, saying, Thus saith the LORD, Forasmuch as thou hast disobeyed the mouth of the LORD, and has not kept the commandment which the LORD thy God commanded thee, But camest back, and hast eaten bread and drunk water in the place, of the which the LORD did say to thee, Eat no bread, and drink no water;’ Here the man of God was solemnly reproved in Bethel for his rebellion against the commandment of the LORD. H e must have remembered how Saul must have felt when he was reproved by Samuel for rebelling against the commandment of God in sparing Amalek. There were those within Paisleyism that rebuked the leadership for intending to enter power sharing with unrepentant terrorists; sadly to no avail. In the next blog we will look at the [Payment] ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Paisleyism -- Art thou the man of God' [3]
Paisleyism
‘Art thou the man of God’ [The Prophet]
These words found in 1Kings 13:14 were spoken by the old prophet of Bethel, as he met the man of God from Judah; we have already considered the meeting place, it was a place of treachery and loss; now our attention turns to the old prophet and how he turned the man of God out of the way. The parallel has been drawn between Paisleyism and the man of God from Judah; now another parallel appears as the old prophet can be seen as being representative of secularism.
The prophet gathered information on the man of God; he must have been impressed with his fearless stand against the sinful and idolatrous king; he was probable awe struck with the boldness and integrity of the man of God, so he was determined to follow him. So they saddled the ass and the old prophet chased urgently after the man of God. Over the years of the troubles in Ulster, there were many secular fellows that began to follow Paisleyism; they may not have had much by the way of spiritual conviction; perhaps they may not have had total political sympathy either; but they wanted to support a leader that thundered against an idolatrous system; when it came to decrying Popery and Republicanism, then they joined in that type of anthem. This type of activity can also be seen as Moses led the children of Israel through the wilderness towards the Promised Land; the mixed multitude followed on too; they contributed only to trouble, compromise and chastisement; they wanted their way at the expense of God’s people. Secularism was welcomed by Paisleyism, after all it was a numbers game, and votes counted, regardless of spiritual conviction.
On finding the man of God sitting under the oak, the old prophet found a perfect opportunity to speak. It is significant that the prophet spoke first, the man of God was compelled to comply and offer a response; ‘Art thou the man of God’? ‘And he said I am’. It seems all right on the surface, but the precedent is made, the old prophet had taken the initiative and the man of God was obliged to follow. It was easy for the old prophet to extend the invitation, because the man of God was taken off guard; the old prophet made no delay in applying the personal touch. He wanted the man of God to follow him; he wanted him to change direction; what a change of tactic from that which the king had previously used; what a turn round of events, once the prophet followed the man of God, now he invited the man of God to follow him. This is exactly what the secular wing of Paisleyism has done; the roles are reversed and Paisleyism is invited to follow secularism into power sharing government with unrepentant terrorists. The old prophet was more than ready to enter into debate with the man of God; he had the arguments well rehearsed, his research was complete in every detail.
An invitation to ‘come home’, an invitation to fellowship, ‘eat bread’; the prophet wanted the man of God to compromise his position; he wanted him to abandon his own home and to refuse his own food. This is what secularism has offered Paisleyism prior to the St Andrews agreement; settle down into worldliness, eat the bread of compromise. However the man of God refused the invitation; he cited God’s commandment which he had received and he would not follow the old prophet; he based his argument as Paisleyism once did on the Word of God.
The old prophet gave a very informed response; he declared also an interest in spiritual things,’ I am a prophet as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’ The man of God was confronted with deception on a grand scale; now he saw the prophet as a colleague and friend; he heard what he perceived to be a message from God for his own heart; he saw an opportunity for early and easy refreshment, comfort and fellowship. Perhaps he saw this as the opportunity that he had been waiting for, to obtain high office over the northern kingdom. The parallel with Paisleyism is most remarkable here as they contemplated the St Andrews agreement; the influence and arguments of the secular wing were so convincing that the leadership consented to the new plan. Like the man of God, Paisleyism changed direction and followed the secular route to the negotiating table. In the next blog we will view the [Pact], ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
‘Art thou the man of God’ [The Prophet]
These words found in 1Kings 13:14 were spoken by the old prophet of Bethel, as he met the man of God from Judah; we have already considered the meeting place, it was a place of treachery and loss; now our attention turns to the old prophet and how he turned the man of God out of the way. The parallel has been drawn between Paisleyism and the man of God from Judah; now another parallel appears as the old prophet can be seen as being representative of secularism.
The prophet gathered information on the man of God; he must have been impressed with his fearless stand against the sinful and idolatrous king; he was probable awe struck with the boldness and integrity of the man of God, so he was determined to follow him. So they saddled the ass and the old prophet chased urgently after the man of God. Over the years of the troubles in Ulster, there were many secular fellows that began to follow Paisleyism; they may not have had much by the way of spiritual conviction; perhaps they may not have had total political sympathy either; but they wanted to support a leader that thundered against an idolatrous system; when it came to decrying Popery and Republicanism, then they joined in that type of anthem. This type of activity can also be seen as Moses led the children of Israel through the wilderness towards the Promised Land; the mixed multitude followed on too; they contributed only to trouble, compromise and chastisement; they wanted their way at the expense of God’s people. Secularism was welcomed by Paisleyism, after all it was a numbers game, and votes counted, regardless of spiritual conviction.
On finding the man of God sitting under the oak, the old prophet found a perfect opportunity to speak. It is significant that the prophet spoke first, the man of God was compelled to comply and offer a response; ‘Art thou the man of God’? ‘And he said I am’. It seems all right on the surface, but the precedent is made, the old prophet had taken the initiative and the man of God was obliged to follow. It was easy for the old prophet to extend the invitation, because the man of God was taken off guard; the old prophet made no delay in applying the personal touch. He wanted the man of God to follow him; he wanted him to change direction; what a change of tactic from that which the king had previously used; what a turn round of events, once the prophet followed the man of God, now he invited the man of God to follow him. This is exactly what the secular wing of Paisleyism has done; the roles are reversed and Paisleyism is invited to follow secularism into power sharing government with unrepentant terrorists. The old prophet was more than ready to enter into debate with the man of God; he had the arguments well rehearsed, his research was complete in every detail.
An invitation to ‘come home’, an invitation to fellowship, ‘eat bread’; the prophet wanted the man of God to compromise his position; he wanted him to abandon his own home and to refuse his own food. This is what secularism has offered Paisleyism prior to the St Andrews agreement; settle down into worldliness, eat the bread of compromise. However the man of God refused the invitation; he cited God’s commandment which he had received and he would not follow the old prophet; he based his argument as Paisleyism once did on the Word of God.
The old prophet gave a very informed response; he declared also an interest in spiritual things,’ I am a prophet as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water.’ The man of God was confronted with deception on a grand scale; now he saw the prophet as a colleague and friend; he heard what he perceived to be a message from God for his own heart; he saw an opportunity for early and easy refreshment, comfort and fellowship. Perhaps he saw this as the opportunity that he had been waiting for, to obtain high office over the northern kingdom. The parallel with Paisleyism is most remarkable here as they contemplated the St Andrews agreement; the influence and arguments of the secular wing were so convincing that the leadership consented to the new plan. Like the man of God, Paisleyism changed direction and followed the secular route to the negotiating table. In the next blog we will view the [Pact], ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Paisleyism -- 'Art thou the man of God' [2]
Paisleyism
‘Art thou the man of God’? [The Place]
This all important question in 1Kings13:14, was asked in a unique place; this question was asked under an oak tree outside Bethel. The Hebrew word, in this particular text, for oak, is,’elah’; this word only occurs in seven Old Testament books; it occurs in Genesis 35, in Judges 6, in 2Samuel 18, here in 1Kings 13, in 1Chronicles 10, in Isaiah 1, and in Ezekiel 6. Seven in scripture speaks of completeness or fullness; so in such a case as this we are able to get a complete picture of this particular place and of the circumstances found there. If we take the first and seventh mentions of the word, we see that under the oak is a place associated with idolatry; next, if the second and sixth mentions are considered, then the place is identified with judgement and loss; once more, if we ponder the third and fifth references, then it is revealed as the place of death; that leaves us with the fourth mention, which stands boldly in the very midst and this is the place of treachery and rebellion.
It is worth pointing out, that on either side of this place depicted in the centre of the seven mentions that we have looked at, is death; 2Samuel 18 reveals the place where young Absalom was slain, in the bows of an oak; while on the other side, in 1Chronicles 10, it was under an oak that Saul and his sons were buried after being slain on Gilboa. This place depicted here in 1Kings 13, under an oak is a very dangerous place to be; it is the place of rebellion against God’s Word; it is where a man of God changed his mind, compromised his principles, forsook his calling and went back to what he once condemned as wrong and sinful..
The man of God had followed the path of obedience and duty, but when he arrived at the oak, he stopped; something evidently was the matter, he was sitting when he should have been serving, his progress had ended, he was seeking the shadows rather than the light, he was in great peril of the enemy catching up with him. Had he grown weary in the way? Had he grown discouraged? Had he stopped to reflect on his past victory and blessing? Had he grown complacent? Had he begun to lean to his own understanding? Was he having second thoughts about the king’s reward which he had formerly refused? So many questions could be asked and probably just as many possible answers suggested; we will never know for certain as to what made the man of God stop in that place, but stop he did. For any believer to stop on the path of devotion, on the path of prayer or on the path of duty; then the place they find themselves in is treacherous indeed. They will find themselves open and vulnerable to temptation and sin; they will soon lose hard won spiritual ground; their grip on God’s Word will become weaker; their state becomes compromised before the world. Such a treacherous place is where backsliding begins and quickly gathers momentum into all out rebellion.
This perhaps, is an astonishing parallel with Paisleyism; progress was evident up to the signing of the Belfast agreement and a little way beyond. The protest against the Good Friday agreement was very different to any of the past; there was an absence of the days of prayer and fasting, that had been called at the time of Sunningdale; there were no protest rallies called to denounce the scandal of releasing criminals into society. There was no evident movement of Paisleyism forward; a token voice of political rhetoric, condemning Ulster Unionists for signing up to the agreement, was turned on and off at will, but no progress.
What became patently obvious, Paisleyism had stopped advancing in step with the Word of God; the same questions could be proffered as were in the case of the man of God that had stopped and had sat down without fulfilling God’s command; what is clear is that Paisleyism had stopped in the place of treachery and rebellion. Had vain glory set in, or was there a longing for what had been refused in the past, a reward from the king.
Paisleyism stopped at the oak tables of the political establishments at Westminster and Dublin; it was there that they considered their position prior to St Andrews; little did they suspect that they had parked in the place of treachery, right in the very spot where the old prophet would find them. In the next blog we will consider [The Prophet} ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
‘Art thou the man of God’? [The Place]
This all important question in 1Kings13:14, was asked in a unique place; this question was asked under an oak tree outside Bethel. The Hebrew word, in this particular text, for oak, is,’elah’; this word only occurs in seven Old Testament books; it occurs in Genesis 35, in Judges 6, in 2Samuel 18, here in 1Kings 13, in 1Chronicles 10, in Isaiah 1, and in Ezekiel 6. Seven in scripture speaks of completeness or fullness; so in such a case as this we are able to get a complete picture of this particular place and of the circumstances found there. If we take the first and seventh mentions of the word, we see that under the oak is a place associated with idolatry; next, if the second and sixth mentions are considered, then the place is identified with judgement and loss; once more, if we ponder the third and fifth references, then it is revealed as the place of death; that leaves us with the fourth mention, which stands boldly in the very midst and this is the place of treachery and rebellion.
It is worth pointing out, that on either side of this place depicted in the centre of the seven mentions that we have looked at, is death; 2Samuel 18 reveals the place where young Absalom was slain, in the bows of an oak; while on the other side, in 1Chronicles 10, it was under an oak that Saul and his sons were buried after being slain on Gilboa. This place depicted here in 1Kings 13, under an oak is a very dangerous place to be; it is the place of rebellion against God’s Word; it is where a man of God changed his mind, compromised his principles, forsook his calling and went back to what he once condemned as wrong and sinful..
The man of God had followed the path of obedience and duty, but when he arrived at the oak, he stopped; something evidently was the matter, he was sitting when he should have been serving, his progress had ended, he was seeking the shadows rather than the light, he was in great peril of the enemy catching up with him. Had he grown weary in the way? Had he grown discouraged? Had he stopped to reflect on his past victory and blessing? Had he grown complacent? Had he begun to lean to his own understanding? Was he having second thoughts about the king’s reward which he had formerly refused? So many questions could be asked and probably just as many possible answers suggested; we will never know for certain as to what made the man of God stop in that place, but stop he did. For any believer to stop on the path of devotion, on the path of prayer or on the path of duty; then the place they find themselves in is treacherous indeed. They will find themselves open and vulnerable to temptation and sin; they will soon lose hard won spiritual ground; their grip on God’s Word will become weaker; their state becomes compromised before the world. Such a treacherous place is where backsliding begins and quickly gathers momentum into all out rebellion.
This perhaps, is an astonishing parallel with Paisleyism; progress was evident up to the signing of the Belfast agreement and a little way beyond. The protest against the Good Friday agreement was very different to any of the past; there was an absence of the days of prayer and fasting, that had been called at the time of Sunningdale; there were no protest rallies called to denounce the scandal of releasing criminals into society. There was no evident movement of Paisleyism forward; a token voice of political rhetoric, condemning Ulster Unionists for signing up to the agreement, was turned on and off at will, but no progress.
What became patently obvious, Paisleyism had stopped advancing in step with the Word of God; the same questions could be proffered as were in the case of the man of God that had stopped and had sat down without fulfilling God’s command; what is clear is that Paisleyism had stopped in the place of treachery and rebellion. Had vain glory set in, or was there a longing for what had been refused in the past, a reward from the king.
Paisleyism stopped at the oak tables of the political establishments at Westminster and Dublin; it was there that they considered their position prior to St Andrews; little did they suspect that they had parked in the place of treachery, right in the very spot where the old prophet would find them. In the next blog we will consider [The Prophet} ‘Art thou the man of God’?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Paisleyism -- 'Art thou the man of God'
Paisleyism
‘Art thou the man of God?’ [The Parallels]
These words are taken from 1Kings13:14; they were addressed to a messenger of God that came from Judah in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam; Jeroboam reigned over the ten northern tribes of Israel, while Rehoboam reigned over Judah and Benjamin in the south. Now Jeroboam had made two golden calves and had them placed in Bethel and Dan; he raised alters beside these graven images and consecrated priests ‘of the lowest of the people’ to serve in this idolatrous false religion. Such a system strikes a remarkable similarity with Roman Catholicism; a system of religion centred on incense burning, idolatry, having a sovereign and a spiritual leader in the one person; outwardly portraying religious symbolism but inwardly false and corrupt, as recent events have revealed to the entire world.
It was against this iniquitous system, that ‘the man of God’ was sent; he carried two sets of instructions from the LORD. Firstly, he was commanded to proclaim God’s Word against the false religious establishment at Bethel. In doing so, he did not attack the false religionists, even though the king had ordered his arrest; on the contrary, he showed mercy and compassion toward the people, which is demonstrated by his praying for the king. ‘The man of God’ took no bribe, accepted no hospitality, had no fellowship with the professional religionists at Bethel; as he discharged his duty, he remained loyal to his heavenly Master; he neither entered into debate nor discussion, he clearly proclaimed the Word of God, adding nothing to nor taking anything from. Moreover the LORD vindicated His servant, by showing signs following the faithful proclamation of God’s Word; the false alter at Bethel was rent and the ashes poured out. What an interesting parallel with the Papacy at present; the altar of false religion has been well smitten and the ashes of sex abuse scandals are pouring out at an alarming rate; the ashes of falsehood are pouring out; even the ashes of alleged corruption and money laundering are pouring out of the Vatican bank. This is what happens when God exposes false religions; everything comes out into the open, even though it’s been buried under seven hills for years. ‘Whoso covereth his sin shall not prosper’
The second part of ‘the man of God’s’ instructions was of equal importance; he was not to eat bread, nor drink water at Bethel; he was not to return by the same way which he had come. The instructions, on the surface would seem trivial; however they were the instructions of his Master and of his Maker; they were of great importance. At this point there arises another striking similarity in the passage, that between the man of God and Paisleyism; the first part of the instructions being carried out by the man of God parallels how Paisleyism proclaimed the Word of God against Papal error for decades. Their faithful ministry of God’s Word censored the errors of ecumenism and guided God’s people in the path of Biblical separation. Such an exposition of the Scriptures of truth has been clearly vindicated; God has smitten the Papal altar of false religion and now all kinds of ashes are pouring forth for the entire world to see.
Now the man of God’s error in not carrying out the second part of his instructions shows the humiliating failure of Paisleyism in recent times; they failed to recognise the old lying prophet of secularism and, like the man of God, have turned back contrary to God’s commandment. In the next blog, we will examine [The Place] where the question was asked; ‘Art thou the man of God?’
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
‘Art thou the man of God?’ [The Parallels]
These words are taken from 1Kings13:14; they were addressed to a messenger of God that came from Judah in the days of Jeroboam and Rehoboam; Jeroboam reigned over the ten northern tribes of Israel, while Rehoboam reigned over Judah and Benjamin in the south. Now Jeroboam had made two golden calves and had them placed in Bethel and Dan; he raised alters beside these graven images and consecrated priests ‘of the lowest of the people’ to serve in this idolatrous false religion. Such a system strikes a remarkable similarity with Roman Catholicism; a system of religion centred on incense burning, idolatry, having a sovereign and a spiritual leader in the one person; outwardly portraying religious symbolism but inwardly false and corrupt, as recent events have revealed to the entire world.
It was against this iniquitous system, that ‘the man of God’ was sent; he carried two sets of instructions from the LORD. Firstly, he was commanded to proclaim God’s Word against the false religious establishment at Bethel. In doing so, he did not attack the false religionists, even though the king had ordered his arrest; on the contrary, he showed mercy and compassion toward the people, which is demonstrated by his praying for the king. ‘The man of God’ took no bribe, accepted no hospitality, had no fellowship with the professional religionists at Bethel; as he discharged his duty, he remained loyal to his heavenly Master; he neither entered into debate nor discussion, he clearly proclaimed the Word of God, adding nothing to nor taking anything from. Moreover the LORD vindicated His servant, by showing signs following the faithful proclamation of God’s Word; the false alter at Bethel was rent and the ashes poured out. What an interesting parallel with the Papacy at present; the altar of false religion has been well smitten and the ashes of sex abuse scandals are pouring out at an alarming rate; the ashes of falsehood are pouring out; even the ashes of alleged corruption and money laundering are pouring out of the Vatican bank. This is what happens when God exposes false religions; everything comes out into the open, even though it’s been buried under seven hills for years. ‘Whoso covereth his sin shall not prosper’
The second part of ‘the man of God’s’ instructions was of equal importance; he was not to eat bread, nor drink water at Bethel; he was not to return by the same way which he had come. The instructions, on the surface would seem trivial; however they were the instructions of his Master and of his Maker; they were of great importance. At this point there arises another striking similarity in the passage, that between the man of God and Paisleyism; the first part of the instructions being carried out by the man of God parallels how Paisleyism proclaimed the Word of God against Papal error for decades. Their faithful ministry of God’s Word censored the errors of ecumenism and guided God’s people in the path of Biblical separation. Such an exposition of the Scriptures of truth has been clearly vindicated; God has smitten the Papal altar of false religion and now all kinds of ashes are pouring forth for the entire world to see.
Now the man of God’s error in not carrying out the second part of his instructions shows the humiliating failure of Paisleyism in recent times; they failed to recognise the old lying prophet of secularism and, like the man of God, have turned back contrary to God’s commandment. In the next blog, we will examine [The Place] where the question was asked; ‘Art thou the man of God?’
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Sunday 3 October 2010
Paisleyism and Secularism.
Paisleyism and Secularism
Paisleyism was once synonymous with Separatist evangelical Protestantism in Ulster and farther a field; as a protestant church, it maintained a consistent stand on the side of the Reformed Faith against the errors of Roman Catholicism, liberalism, modernism and an ever increasing collection of cults; on the political spectrum it championed the cause of uncompromising Unionism and vigorously opposed a united Ireland under republicanism.
There was a noticeable change in Paisleyism towards the late 1980s and early 1990s; separatist stands against various things were showing signs of compromise; the opening of shops and leisure facilities for example. However, it was about the time of the political agreement at St Andrews that Paisleyism changed to such an extent that it become no longer recognisable to evangelical Protestants.
The leader and founder of The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and also leader of the DUP, Rev Ian Paisley, entered into negotiations with Ulster political leaders at a meeting hosted by the British and Irish governments at St Andrews. The talks were predicated upon the secular foundation of the Belfast agreement; after some ‘political spin’ or secular air brushing, there was a framework for terrorist inclusive government agreed. What is remarkable, is that, how did Rev Ian Paisley not recognise that the whole talks process was built upon secularism; how did he miss the absence of God’s Word being foundational to any political settlement.
At the referendum, the Republican voters voted the secular Sinn Fein party into power; while the unsuspecting Unionist voters voted the DUP into power; what the unionist electorate had not been told was that the power sharing arrangement was secular and not scripturally based. Rev Ian Paisley took the First Minster position in the terrorist inclusive executive; he stood down from his position as moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster so that he could pursue his new secular position.
For decades Paisleyism upbraided protestant denominations by calling them apostate as they slid backwards to the errors of Roman Catholicism; what will they call their own leader that led Ulster protestants into a Godless secular based power sharing executive with unrepentant criminals? While it is sad to witness protestant denominations backsliding into Papal error; it is devastating to watch evangelical Protestantism apostatize into secularism which is the spawning ground of Humanism and Atheism.
So long as the Free Presbyterian Church supports its ministers and members who support such a secularly based political power sharing executive, they are seen to be supporting secularism; how can any Christian denomination support apostasy in any form?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Paisleyism was once synonymous with Separatist evangelical Protestantism in Ulster and farther a field; as a protestant church, it maintained a consistent stand on the side of the Reformed Faith against the errors of Roman Catholicism, liberalism, modernism and an ever increasing collection of cults; on the political spectrum it championed the cause of uncompromising Unionism and vigorously opposed a united Ireland under republicanism.
There was a noticeable change in Paisleyism towards the late 1980s and early 1990s; separatist stands against various things were showing signs of compromise; the opening of shops and leisure facilities for example. However, it was about the time of the political agreement at St Andrews that Paisleyism changed to such an extent that it become no longer recognisable to evangelical Protestants.
The leader and founder of The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and also leader of the DUP, Rev Ian Paisley, entered into negotiations with Ulster political leaders at a meeting hosted by the British and Irish governments at St Andrews. The talks were predicated upon the secular foundation of the Belfast agreement; after some ‘political spin’ or secular air brushing, there was a framework for terrorist inclusive government agreed. What is remarkable, is that, how did Rev Ian Paisley not recognise that the whole talks process was built upon secularism; how did he miss the absence of God’s Word being foundational to any political settlement.
At the referendum, the Republican voters voted the secular Sinn Fein party into power; while the unsuspecting Unionist voters voted the DUP into power; what the unionist electorate had not been told was that the power sharing arrangement was secular and not scripturally based. Rev Ian Paisley took the First Minster position in the terrorist inclusive executive; he stood down from his position as moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster so that he could pursue his new secular position.
For decades Paisleyism upbraided protestant denominations by calling them apostate as they slid backwards to the errors of Roman Catholicism; what will they call their own leader that led Ulster protestants into a Godless secular based power sharing executive with unrepentant criminals? While it is sad to witness protestant denominations backsliding into Papal error; it is devastating to watch evangelical Protestantism apostatize into secularism which is the spawning ground of Humanism and Atheism.
So long as the Free Presbyterian Church supports its ministers and members who support such a secularly based political power sharing executive, they are seen to be supporting secularism; how can any Christian denomination support apostasy in any form?
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Stormont Executive Founded on Secularism.
Stormont Executive Founded on Secularism.
May 1997 saw New Labour, infected by secularism, sweep into power; in a short space of time, the corridors of power and the cabinet office were awash with secularist ideals; reform of the House of Lords, removal of religion from the political establishment, implementation of equality legislation so as to undermine Christian values, the shifting of ethical values from the Word of God and pitching them upon human reasoning.
In a relatively short time GB has become the global hub of secularism and a spawning ground for secular humanism and atheism to the demise of Biblical Christianity. So it was in such an environment, that Northern Ireland’s peace process was evaluated by the British government. Mr Blair gathered our local politicians, along with the Irish government officials, around the negotiating table to manufacture an agreement that would, in theory, end Ulster’s troubles for good.
It must be remembered that Mr Blair’s spin doctor, Alister Campbell had said; ‘we don’t do God’; and it is precisely in this context that the Belfast Agreement was established. Good Friday was chosen, to give the pretext of religious significance, to suit the Ulster people; but there was nothing of religious or moral value, in a political agreement founded on secular and not Scriptural values.
This Agreement, based entirely on secularism, was a prototype, to install equality at the expense of morality, to provide political settlement without the endorsement of God’s Word; and to bring peace at any cost to Ulster. However, the DUP felt at that time, they could not sign up to the Belfast Agreement and so little progress was made for a few years. After a time, the local politicians, together with the British and Irish government officials arrived at St Andrews and formulated another political agreement which made it possible to include the DUP. Nothing had changed as to the secular foundation of the agreement, just a little air brushing of the secular language in the wording; the venue had a particular protestant connotation, but alas, there was no room for Scriptural principle, let alone precept.
What is so remarkable, is that the leader of the DUP and of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, Rev Ian Paisley, did sign up to this agreement, that was from the outset built upon secularism; one would have imagined, that if anybody would have objected to such and agreement built on any foundation other than God’s Word, then he would have. Remarkably this was not the case; after a referendum, Rev Ian Paisley took the seat of First Minister with Martin McGuinness as his deputy; the prototype no God political formula had finally worked; the irony being, that it took the expertise of an evangelical protestant gospel minister to make it happen.
The Ulster protestant had been deceived, what they had voted for, was a political agreement that they had taken for granted, was founded upon Christian values and principles, as one would expect in a Christian democracy; what they didn’t realise was that the agreement stood on the foundation of secularism without Christianity. There was no difficulty for the republican and nationalist voters of Sinn Fein to be identified with the agreement as their party is a self declared ‘secular party’.
However, for the unionists, there was a problem; while some considered the implementation of a political power sharing executive as necessary for stability and peace, they will be far from pleased when they discover that basic Christian foundational principles have been replaced with secular philosophy. While evangelical Protestants initially considered the agreement to be a sell out to Republicanism and an abandonment of their civil and religious liberty, they will be astounded to discover moreover, the executive at Stormont to be built on secularism to the exclusion of Reformed Faith values.
Indeed it is a sad day for Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ulster, to discover that secularism has triumphed to the extent that our political establishment is built solely upon a secular and Godless foundation; where basic Christian principles and values are removed from government. Our Westminster government, laden with secularism, imagined that religion solely was the root of Ulster’s troubles and acted decisively to have it removed; what do we have now?; a political establishment without moral authority and without a Christian foundation; this will ultimately lead to a Godless society, where wickedness and evil know no bounds.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
May 1997 saw New Labour, infected by secularism, sweep into power; in a short space of time, the corridors of power and the cabinet office were awash with secularist ideals; reform of the House of Lords, removal of religion from the political establishment, implementation of equality legislation so as to undermine Christian values, the shifting of ethical values from the Word of God and pitching them upon human reasoning.
In a relatively short time GB has become the global hub of secularism and a spawning ground for secular humanism and atheism to the demise of Biblical Christianity. So it was in such an environment, that Northern Ireland’s peace process was evaluated by the British government. Mr Blair gathered our local politicians, along with the Irish government officials, around the negotiating table to manufacture an agreement that would, in theory, end Ulster’s troubles for good.
It must be remembered that Mr Blair’s spin doctor, Alister Campbell had said; ‘we don’t do God’; and it is precisely in this context that the Belfast Agreement was established. Good Friday was chosen, to give the pretext of religious significance, to suit the Ulster people; but there was nothing of religious or moral value, in a political agreement founded on secular and not Scriptural values.
This Agreement, based entirely on secularism, was a prototype, to install equality at the expense of morality, to provide political settlement without the endorsement of God’s Word; and to bring peace at any cost to Ulster. However, the DUP felt at that time, they could not sign up to the Belfast Agreement and so little progress was made for a few years. After a time, the local politicians, together with the British and Irish government officials arrived at St Andrews and formulated another political agreement which made it possible to include the DUP. Nothing had changed as to the secular foundation of the agreement, just a little air brushing of the secular language in the wording; the venue had a particular protestant connotation, but alas, there was no room for Scriptural principle, let alone precept.
What is so remarkable, is that the leader of the DUP and of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, Rev Ian Paisley, did sign up to this agreement, that was from the outset built upon secularism; one would have imagined, that if anybody would have objected to such and agreement built on any foundation other than God’s Word, then he would have. Remarkably this was not the case; after a referendum, Rev Ian Paisley took the seat of First Minister with Martin McGuinness as his deputy; the prototype no God political formula had finally worked; the irony being, that it took the expertise of an evangelical protestant gospel minister to make it happen.
The Ulster protestant had been deceived, what they had voted for, was a political agreement that they had taken for granted, was founded upon Christian values and principles, as one would expect in a Christian democracy; what they didn’t realise was that the agreement stood on the foundation of secularism without Christianity. There was no difficulty for the republican and nationalist voters of Sinn Fein to be identified with the agreement as their party is a self declared ‘secular party’.
However, for the unionists, there was a problem; while some considered the implementation of a political power sharing executive as necessary for stability and peace, they will be far from pleased when they discover that basic Christian foundational principles have been replaced with secular philosophy. While evangelical Protestants initially considered the agreement to be a sell out to Republicanism and an abandonment of their civil and religious liberty, they will be astounded to discover moreover, the executive at Stormont to be built on secularism to the exclusion of Reformed Faith values.
Indeed it is a sad day for Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ulster, to discover that secularism has triumphed to the extent that our political establishment is built solely upon a secular and Godless foundation; where basic Christian principles and values are removed from government. Our Westminster government, laden with secularism, imagined that religion solely was the root of Ulster’s troubles and acted decisively to have it removed; what do we have now?; a political establishment without moral authority and without a Christian foundation; this will ultimately lead to a Godless society, where wickedness and evil know no bounds.
Rev Mervyn Cotton (Heb13:6)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)