David's lamentation over the tragic loss of Saul and Jonathan, together with many of God's people, on Gilboa, is punctuated with the phrase, 'how are the mighty fallen'. We have already considered this from the context of a ruined leadership, now our attention is to be focused on a ruined friendship.
In this life, filled with uncertainty, heartache and difficulty, it is good to have friends; without doubt the best friend to have, is the 'friend of sinners', the one that hath said 'I will never leave thee nor forsake thee', the Lord Jesus Christ. As David mourns Israel's loss and ruin at Gilboa, he begins to reflect on his friendship with Jonathan; 'How are the mighty fallen in the midst of the battle!' That day, David had lost a dear friend in the most callous and terrible manner, when the enemy took away Jonathan's life.
Earlier David watched on helplessly as Israel under Saul compromised their separatist principles and entered into fellowship with the enemy. Persecution from the leadership in Israel had chased David into the fields while his friend Jonathan remained in the palace; yet such circumstances did not break their friendship; their friendship was in the Lord and so it had a lasting foundation. When Jonathan went onto mount Gilboa, David's heart went with him; in David's eyes his friend was a mighty man of God; not withstanding his friend was in great peril because God's presence had been withdrawn from Israel. As a fellow soldier, David felt the deep loss of Jonathan on that God forsaken battle field.
David said, 'O Jonathan, thou wast slain in thine high places'; this could be that Jonathan had reached the height of his career, he had been in high office next to the king; yes, he had been set on high. His death was all the more poignant in David's sight; David's friend was cut down when he was just in his prime, making the loss well nigh unbearable.
Jonathan loved David in the Lord, this was a love that rendered the tie of friendship with David unbreakable unto death. 'I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan; very pleasant hast thou been unto me; thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.' Now the greatest test of David's friendship to Jonathan had come; Jonathan had been defeated before the enemy, he had fought without the Lord and had lost; his testimony was now in question, his error was great. The enemy had prevailed, David had lost his dear friend; the strong cord of friendship was finally broken, the enemy had gotten the victory.
The parallel is easily enough found amongst evangelical protestants today in the wake of the recent ruinous circumstances where evangelical protestant leaders have sought friendship of the world. God's people that once were close friends in various church fellowships, no longer speak to each other. Office bearers will not shake hands with one another; gospel ministers often behave in a callous and abrasive manner towards their flock; other pastors seek to destroy neighbouring flocks by railing against them. There is no point in naming any particular denomination here, as it is already public knowledge, to the shame of all that are saved by grace. 'how are the mighty fallen'
There is no doubt, friendships have been broken and what is more, are being broken daily in evangelical protestant fellowships; why? because the enemy has got into the midst and has destroyed the foundation upon which Christian friendship can be established. Christian friendship is built upon separation from the mammon of this fallen world, and separation unto God's Word. 'friendship of the world is enmity with God' -- 'whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God'. When, as believers, we see the ruined friendships that prevail in evangelical protestant circles today; we can but echo the words, 'how are the mighty fallen'
Sunday, 15 August 2010
The Ruin at Gilboa / Ruined Leadership
Every road that leads the believer away from the things that Christ loves and deviates towards those things that Christ hates, will always lead to ruin and loss. Gilboa was such a place for Saul and Israel, it was here that God’s people fell and the enemies of the Lord were seen to triumph. This was a place where political negotiations with Amalek had drawn two generations of God’s people to suffer defeat and ruin. Sadly, Israel of old had turned away from following the LORD of hosts and had followed Saul into battle.
The second book of Samuel opens with perhaps the darkest chapter in the history of God’s people, when the ruin at Gilboa was announced. Ironically, the tidings of Israel’s defeat and ruin came to David at Ziklag from the lips of an Amalekite, one that had assisted in Saul’s death. Remember, it was Saul, who, after some political negotiations had consented to the early release of Agag, king of the Amalekites. When David heard of the sad ruin at Gilboa, the scriptures declare that; ‘Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the LORD, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword.’
As David lamented the tragic loss on Gilboa’s battlefield, he used the phrase; ‘how are the mighty fallen,’ three times; this phrase punctuates, ruined leadership, ruined friendship and ruined fellowship among God’s people. This provides yet another parallel with the ruin of evangelical protestant testimony in our nation of late, ‘how are the mighty fallen’
Leadership ruined
As David heard of the devastation that had overtaken Israel; in one day two generations in Israel suffered humiliation and defeat. Israel’s leadership had been wiped out, the mighty had fallen on Gilboa. David was not so much interested in the details of the enemy victory; he was more concerned with the former testimony of Israel’s leadership that had tragically fallen. He said, ‘the beauty of Israel is slain’ – ‘Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.’ David didn’t attack the former leaders; he mourned their ruined leadership and the loss amongst God’s people. ‘Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.’
David did not want the place of defeat and ruin remembered or celebrated either; ‘Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings:’ Neither did David want there to be occasion for the enemy to reproach the name of the Lord; the ruin of God’s people was not to be published in a vain glorious fashion. ‘Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph’. All David could say in response to the ruined leadership of God’s people at Gilboa, was, ‘how are the mighty fallen’
How could such ruin overtake Israel’s leadership at Gilboa? How could such champions in Israel be defeated? How could mighty men as Saul and Jonathan fall before the enemy? These were brave men; they had indeed fought previously in the Lord’s battles and triumphed through God. ‘From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty’. David hits the answer to some, if not to all of these questions; ‘for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil.’ God is the shield and buckler of His redeemed; but when God’s people cast off the Lord then they cannot stand before the enemy; they stand as if they are the same as the enemy; ‘as though he had not been anointed with oil’ Saul had cast off the commandment of the Lord and clad himself in the rags of political compromise. The secret talks and deals at Endor could afford no protection for Israel’s leadership as they fell at Gilboa. ‘how are the mighty fallen’
Now for the very painful parallel with the evangelical protestant leadership of our day which have been ruined and sore defeated in recent times. A political agreement was reached at Hillsborough whereby policing and justice will be placed in the remit of the terrorist inclusive, amoral executive at Stormont. This agreement is the consummation of the Belfast and St Andrews agreements and has the approval and support of evangelical protestant leaders. Evangelical protestant leaders signed up to the St Andrews agreement, sat down in partnership government with unrepentant terrorists and then advocated the full devolution of policing and justice powers to the executive.
By implication and association, this means that our evangelical protestant leaders support the early release of murderers into society; this is contrary to God’s Word, which states that the evil doer should be punished. Moreover they have helped, whether by association or by deed, to implement and support a terrorist inclusive government, which appears to have a secular humanistic foundation; it must also be said that this government has no opposition party. First and second generation Free Presbyterians, who entered into solemn covenant with the Lord, vowed to love the things which Christ loves, and to hate the things that Christ hates; now, how can a covenant such as this stand, when their leadership have not condemned the undemocratic, amoral and terrorist inclusive executive at Stormont? ‘how are the mighty fallen’
Our civil and religious liberty, which was purchased at such cost, has been cut adrift by central and devolved government that is intent on the implementation of legislation which is supportive of secular humanistic opinion and is destructive towards the authoritative Word of Almighty God. When the ruin of evangelical protestant leadership is brought into focus like this, we who are saved by grace alone through faith alone, can only but hang our heads before the One who loved us and gave himself for us; and cry, ‘how are the mighty fallen’!
The second book of Samuel opens with perhaps the darkest chapter in the history of God’s people, when the ruin at Gilboa was announced. Ironically, the tidings of Israel’s defeat and ruin came to David at Ziklag from the lips of an Amalekite, one that had assisted in Saul’s death. Remember, it was Saul, who, after some political negotiations had consented to the early release of Agag, king of the Amalekites. When David heard of the sad ruin at Gilboa, the scriptures declare that; ‘Then David took hold on his clothes, and rent them; and likewise all the men that were with him: And they mourned, and wept, and fasted until even, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the LORD, and for the house of Israel; because they were fallen by the sword.’
As David lamented the tragic loss on Gilboa’s battlefield, he used the phrase; ‘how are the mighty fallen,’ three times; this phrase punctuates, ruined leadership, ruined friendship and ruined fellowship among God’s people. This provides yet another parallel with the ruin of evangelical protestant testimony in our nation of late, ‘how are the mighty fallen’
Leadership ruined
As David heard of the devastation that had overtaken Israel; in one day two generations in Israel suffered humiliation and defeat. Israel’s leadership had been wiped out, the mighty had fallen on Gilboa. David was not so much interested in the details of the enemy victory; he was more concerned with the former testimony of Israel’s leadership that had tragically fallen. He said, ‘the beauty of Israel is slain’ – ‘Saul and Jonathan were lovely and pleasant in their lives, and in their death they were not divided: they were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions.’ David didn’t attack the former leaders; he mourned their ruined leadership and the loss amongst God’s people. ‘Ye daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet, with other delights, who put on ornaments of gold upon your apparel.’
David did not want the place of defeat and ruin remembered or celebrated either; ‘Ye mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew, neither let there be rain, upon you, nor fields of offerings:’ Neither did David want there to be occasion for the enemy to reproach the name of the Lord; the ruin of God’s people was not to be published in a vain glorious fashion. ‘Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon; lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised triumph’. All David could say in response to the ruined leadership of God’s people at Gilboa, was, ‘how are the mighty fallen’
How could such ruin overtake Israel’s leadership at Gilboa? How could such champions in Israel be defeated? How could mighty men as Saul and Jonathan fall before the enemy? These were brave men; they had indeed fought previously in the Lord’s battles and triumphed through God. ‘From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Jonathan turned not back, and the sword of Saul returned not empty’. David hits the answer to some, if not to all of these questions; ‘for there the shield of the mighty is vilely cast away, the shield of Saul, as though he had not been anointed with oil.’ God is the shield and buckler of His redeemed; but when God’s people cast off the Lord then they cannot stand before the enemy; they stand as if they are the same as the enemy; ‘as though he had not been anointed with oil’ Saul had cast off the commandment of the Lord and clad himself in the rags of political compromise. The secret talks and deals at Endor could afford no protection for Israel’s leadership as they fell at Gilboa. ‘how are the mighty fallen’
Now for the very painful parallel with the evangelical protestant leadership of our day which have been ruined and sore defeated in recent times. A political agreement was reached at Hillsborough whereby policing and justice will be placed in the remit of the terrorist inclusive, amoral executive at Stormont. This agreement is the consummation of the Belfast and St Andrews agreements and has the approval and support of evangelical protestant leaders. Evangelical protestant leaders signed up to the St Andrews agreement, sat down in partnership government with unrepentant terrorists and then advocated the full devolution of policing and justice powers to the executive.
By implication and association, this means that our evangelical protestant leaders support the early release of murderers into society; this is contrary to God’s Word, which states that the evil doer should be punished. Moreover they have helped, whether by association or by deed, to implement and support a terrorist inclusive government, which appears to have a secular humanistic foundation; it must also be said that this government has no opposition party. First and second generation Free Presbyterians, who entered into solemn covenant with the Lord, vowed to love the things which Christ loves, and to hate the things that Christ hates; now, how can a covenant such as this stand, when their leadership have not condemned the undemocratic, amoral and terrorist inclusive executive at Stormont? ‘how are the mighty fallen’
Our civil and religious liberty, which was purchased at such cost, has been cut adrift by central and devolved government that is intent on the implementation of legislation which is supportive of secular humanistic opinion and is destructive towards the authoritative Word of Almighty God. When the ruin of evangelical protestant leadership is brought into focus like this, we who are saved by grace alone through faith alone, can only but hang our heads before the One who loved us and gave himself for us; and cry, ‘how are the mighty fallen’!
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
The Road to Gilboa
Gilboa, situated a few miles west of Bethshean, near the plain of Jezreel, is a hilly area in Israel west of Jordan where Saul and his sons were slain in battle. In consideration of the tragic events that have overtaken evangelical protestantism in our nation of late I want to consider Gilboa in a spiritual context, so as to get an understanding of the present times in which we live as born again believers.
Over the space of the next few blogs, we are going to trace the 'Road to Gilboa', the 'Ruin at Gilboa ' and the 'Recovery from Gilboa'. I want to particularly trace the course of evangelical protestantism here in Ulster over the past fifty to sixty years, and draw certain unmistakable parallels between first and second generation Free Presbyterianism, or Paisleyism, and Israel under Saul.
The road that Israel started on under Saul's command looked promising enough, it showed great potential and certainly did not appear to lead into humiliation and lamentable defeat. The Scriptures say of Saul, 'there went with him a band of men whose heart God had touched'; and so the parallel begins with those that supported Rev Ian Paisley in the Free Presbyterian Church back in the nineteen fifties and early sixties. Saul's former position was one of separation unto God and His Word, and uncompromising opposition to the Philistines of his day; and the same parallel could be drawn with Paisleyism a few decades ago, as it championed evangelical protestantism and opposed Papal error.
The path that led Saul and Israel to defeat, humiliation and immeasurable loss at Gilboa is easily enough found in first Samuel and is punctuated with the same turns that have led to the terrible situation that has overtaken evangelical protestantism in Ulster today. The opening verses of chapter 13 reveal Saul's personal ambition to be held in high esteem of men; ' and all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten the Philistines'; vain glory soon led to the fear of man, and the fear of man led to rash self willed disobedience where Saul offered sacrifice rather than waiting on the LORD and showing respect to Samuel's office (ch13:4-16)
These subtle yet significant incidents soon turned Israel, under Saul, out the path of obedient service to God and into the road that led to Gilboa and reproachful defeat. 1Samuel 14 shows rash oaths bringing faintness and uncertainty among God's people; such rash and callous behaviour soon led to wrong judgement being visited upon the faithful labourers by a headstrong nonspiritual oversight. 1Samuel 15 reveals how Israel under Saul's leadership adopted political expediency and rejected the Word of God. Israel became more politically astute and less spiritually minded; this is born out by Saul yielding to political pressure, sparing Agag and the best of the herds, and disobeying the commandment of Almighty God.
After this political alliance, Israel followed Saul more than they followed God; this resulted in jealousy and rivalry in the camp of God's people. When David defeated the Philistine giant, rather than united rejoicing among the saints of God, there was spite, envy and bitterness among the oversight. Such treacherous behaviour in the camp of Israel resulted in people like David being persecuted and chased out into the open field; then there was Doeg, slaying the priests at Saul's command.
While Israel, in Saul's day devoured one another, the enemy were gaining strength and encouragement. Unnoticed to Saul, the Philistines were equipping themselves with better weaponry; they were studying the evident weaknesses in the camp of Israel and preparing to strike terror among God's people; while Saul ridiculed, persecuted and destroyed Israel, the Philistines were closing rank and planing their attack.
By the time Saul went to Endor, the Philistines were in a very strong position and Israel were weak beyond measure. At Endor, Saul promised amnesty to the guilty lawbreaker, typified in the witch; God's law said she should die, Saul promised her life. Political association always demands compromise, and here are the actions of a man that had changed; once he destroyed the lawbreakers now he was instrumental in their release and protection. In a very short time, Saul was found on Gilboa, surrounded by fallen Israel.
We can trace the parallel path of evangelical protestantism in Ulster throughout this Biblical narrative ; it is easy to see how that when evangelical protestants seek a political mandate more than Divine approval, then what is sown by the flesh must be reaped. Ulster's Endor can be pin pointed at Belfast and St Andrews, where criminals were released from prison and even put into government; where humanistic equality legislation received evangelical protestant approval; then, on the other hand, Gilboa is found at Hillsburgh, where the justice system is to be handed over to a terrorist inclusive government, which is again supported by evangelical protestants. How can evangelical protestants support any form of terrorist inclusive government and claim to love the things that Christ loves and hate the things that Christ hates? In the next blog we will consider the Ruin at Gilboa.
Over the space of the next few blogs, we are going to trace the 'Road to Gilboa', the 'Ruin at Gilboa ' and the 'Recovery from Gilboa'. I want to particularly trace the course of evangelical protestantism here in Ulster over the past fifty to sixty years, and draw certain unmistakable parallels between first and second generation Free Presbyterianism, or Paisleyism, and Israel under Saul.
The road that Israel started on under Saul's command looked promising enough, it showed great potential and certainly did not appear to lead into humiliation and lamentable defeat. The Scriptures say of Saul, 'there went with him a band of men whose heart God had touched'; and so the parallel begins with those that supported Rev Ian Paisley in the Free Presbyterian Church back in the nineteen fifties and early sixties. Saul's former position was one of separation unto God and His Word, and uncompromising opposition to the Philistines of his day; and the same parallel could be drawn with Paisleyism a few decades ago, as it championed evangelical protestantism and opposed Papal error.
The path that led Saul and Israel to defeat, humiliation and immeasurable loss at Gilboa is easily enough found in first Samuel and is punctuated with the same turns that have led to the terrible situation that has overtaken evangelical protestantism in Ulster today. The opening verses of chapter 13 reveal Saul's personal ambition to be held in high esteem of men; ' and all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten the Philistines'; vain glory soon led to the fear of man, and the fear of man led to rash self willed disobedience where Saul offered sacrifice rather than waiting on the LORD and showing respect to Samuel's office (ch13:4-16)
These subtle yet significant incidents soon turned Israel, under Saul, out the path of obedient service to God and into the road that led to Gilboa and reproachful defeat. 1Samuel 14 shows rash oaths bringing faintness and uncertainty among God's people; such rash and callous behaviour soon led to wrong judgement being visited upon the faithful labourers by a headstrong nonspiritual oversight. 1Samuel 15 reveals how Israel under Saul's leadership adopted political expediency and rejected the Word of God. Israel became more politically astute and less spiritually minded; this is born out by Saul yielding to political pressure, sparing Agag and the best of the herds, and disobeying the commandment of Almighty God.
After this political alliance, Israel followed Saul more than they followed God; this resulted in jealousy and rivalry in the camp of God's people. When David defeated the Philistine giant, rather than united rejoicing among the saints of God, there was spite, envy and bitterness among the oversight. Such treacherous behaviour in the camp of Israel resulted in people like David being persecuted and chased out into the open field; then there was Doeg, slaying the priests at Saul's command.
While Israel, in Saul's day devoured one another, the enemy were gaining strength and encouragement. Unnoticed to Saul, the Philistines were equipping themselves with better weaponry; they were studying the evident weaknesses in the camp of Israel and preparing to strike terror among God's people; while Saul ridiculed, persecuted and destroyed Israel, the Philistines were closing rank and planing their attack.
By the time Saul went to Endor, the Philistines were in a very strong position and Israel were weak beyond measure. At Endor, Saul promised amnesty to the guilty lawbreaker, typified in the witch; God's law said she should die, Saul promised her life. Political association always demands compromise, and here are the actions of a man that had changed; once he destroyed the lawbreakers now he was instrumental in their release and protection. In a very short time, Saul was found on Gilboa, surrounded by fallen Israel.
We can trace the parallel path of evangelical protestantism in Ulster throughout this Biblical narrative ; it is easy to see how that when evangelical protestants seek a political mandate more than Divine approval, then what is sown by the flesh must be reaped. Ulster's Endor can be pin pointed at Belfast and St Andrews, where criminals were released from prison and even put into government; where humanistic equality legislation received evangelical protestant approval; then, on the other hand, Gilboa is found at Hillsburgh, where the justice system is to be handed over to a terrorist inclusive government, which is again supported by evangelical protestants. How can evangelical protestants support any form of terrorist inclusive government and claim to love the things that Christ loves and hate the things that Christ hates? In the next blog we will consider the Ruin at Gilboa.
Sunday, 8 August 2010
The Silent Moderator
Quite some time has lapsed since I asked the moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, Rev Ron Johnstone, to publish His denomination's present position on terrorist inclusive government; there has been no reply, not even an acknowledgement to my request.
Just prior to Rev Ian Paisley's fellowshipping with terrorists in government, the presbytery released the following statement; 'As a denomination we will continue to stand without compromise for Jesus Christ and will vigorously oppose any betrayal of His gospel and departure from the Biblical faith and truths'.
After Rev Johnstone's appointment as moderator he had this to say regarding the DUP and its former leader; concerning the Free Presbyterian Church and the DUP, 'we are totally different organisations', 'there is no official connection'. Rev Johnstone went on to say that, 'Dr Paisley will continue to have a prominent role in the church, and in the presbytery'.
Clearly, Rev Paisley and others broke with the long established separatist position of their church so as to fellowship in a terrorist inclusive government; such action has not been censored or condemned by the presbytery. Rev Ian Paisley held the positions of Moderator, Minister, First Minister and President of the Whitefield College of the Bible simultaneously, without objection from the presbytery, even in light of their former public statement.
Rev Johnstone has publicly vindicated Rev Paisley's position and in doing so, it is my opinion that he has contradicted his presbyteries former statement. It is absurd in the extreme to have a statement which condemns sin, apostasy and immorality and then to vindicate those that have compromised the very principles upon which their church purports to stand.
For some time I have sought to understand what has gone wrong in our society here in Ulster; ever since the establishment of the humanistic Good Friday Agreement, there has been a steady decline in the moral fabric of this Provence; this decline has resulted in a coalition government without moral authority and a form of protestantism without foundation or voice.
Just prior to Rev Ian Paisley's fellowshipping with terrorists in government, the presbytery released the following statement; 'As a denomination we will continue to stand without compromise for Jesus Christ and will vigorously oppose any betrayal of His gospel and departure from the Biblical faith and truths'.
After Rev Johnstone's appointment as moderator he had this to say regarding the DUP and its former leader; concerning the Free Presbyterian Church and the DUP, 'we are totally different organisations', 'there is no official connection'. Rev Johnstone went on to say that, 'Dr Paisley will continue to have a prominent role in the church, and in the presbytery'.
Clearly, Rev Paisley and others broke with the long established separatist position of their church so as to fellowship in a terrorist inclusive government; such action has not been censored or condemned by the presbytery. Rev Ian Paisley held the positions of Moderator, Minister, First Minister and President of the Whitefield College of the Bible simultaneously, without objection from the presbytery, even in light of their former public statement.
Rev Johnstone has publicly vindicated Rev Paisley's position and in doing so, it is my opinion that he has contradicted his presbyteries former statement. It is absurd in the extreme to have a statement which condemns sin, apostasy and immorality and then to vindicate those that have compromised the very principles upon which their church purports to stand.
For some time I have sought to understand what has gone wrong in our society here in Ulster; ever since the establishment of the humanistic Good Friday Agreement, there has been a steady decline in the moral fabric of this Provence; this decline has resulted in a coalition government without moral authority and a form of protestantism without foundation or voice.
Sunday, 13 June 2010
Free Presbyterian Position Requires Statement
The Free Presbyterian Church has published a statement announcing its protest against the proposed Papal visit to England. It is duplicity for the Free Presbyterian Church to protest against the Papal visit, while its ministers and members support terrorist inclusive government at Stormont.
Some years ago the Papacy supported the IRA hunger strikers, now the FPC supports the power sharing executive which includes former IRA members and sympathisers. This is a position which Free Presbyterians need to consider before they seek to protest against the Papal visit, such a protest will serve only to highlight the Church's compromised position pertaining to evangelical protestantism and spiritual separation.
Retired Free Presbyterian minister Rev Ivan Foster said back in 2007, that Rev Ian Paisley's fellow-shipping with Sinn Fein was not a reflection of the position adopted by the FPC. Mr Foster pointed to the Presbytery statement of 1998 against the 'Good Friday Agreement, which condemned 'power sharing with murderers, as unscriptural, unethical and immoral'.
The situation now is that there are ministers that preach in Free Presbyterian pulpits who are subject to their presbytery, that have actively supported the very power sharing arrangements which they have already condemned as 'unscriptural, unethical and immoral'. These ministers enjoy presbytery support while at the same time ignoring presbyteries former statement on the matter.
So how can the FPC presbytery propose a protest against the unscriptural position of the Papacy while at the same time approving support of a terrorist inclusive government? I have emailed the current moderator of presbytery, Rev R Johnston, and requested a copy of presbyteries current position on terrorist inclusive government.
Some years ago the Papacy supported the IRA hunger strikers, now the FPC supports the power sharing executive which includes former IRA members and sympathisers. This is a position which Free Presbyterians need to consider before they seek to protest against the Papal visit, such a protest will serve only to highlight the Church's compromised position pertaining to evangelical protestantism and spiritual separation.
Retired Free Presbyterian minister Rev Ivan Foster said back in 2007, that Rev Ian Paisley's fellow-shipping with Sinn Fein was not a reflection of the position adopted by the FPC. Mr Foster pointed to the Presbytery statement of 1998 against the 'Good Friday Agreement, which condemned 'power sharing with murderers, as unscriptural, unethical and immoral'.
The situation now is that there are ministers that preach in Free Presbyterian pulpits who are subject to their presbytery, that have actively supported the very power sharing arrangements which they have already condemned as 'unscriptural, unethical and immoral'. These ministers enjoy presbytery support while at the same time ignoring presbyteries former statement on the matter.
So how can the FPC presbytery propose a protest against the unscriptural position of the Papacy while at the same time approving support of a terrorist inclusive government? I have emailed the current moderator of presbytery, Rev R Johnston, and requested a copy of presbyteries current position on terrorist inclusive government.
Friday, 11 June 2010
Protest against Papal visit by Free Presbyterians
Protest against Papal visit by Free Presbyterians
I read this article in the Belfast Newsletter with interest and concern; interest as a former licensed minister in the Free Presbyterian Church and concern as a betrayed evangelical protestant. This intended protest from the Free Presbyterians would have been consistent with their separatist principles some years ago, but it is inconsistent with their perceived position at present.
The Free Presbyterian Church watched on as their former moderator, Rev Ian Paisley entered into a power sharing government, against his church’s principles on separation; they did not object when their ministers shared political power with associates of terrorism. The presbytery had no difficulty with one of their senior ministers’ fellowshipping with a former IRA commander and laughing together. The presbytery was silent when some of their ministers called on the Ulster people to support them in political coalition with people that they formerly described as the enemies of Protestantism.
Why does the presbytery of the Free Presbyterian Church come out now to protest against the Papal visit, when one of their ministers had visited Archbishop Brady a few years back? There was no protest then. Why do they claim to be so concerned now about the Pope’s visit when they watch the Martyr’s Memorial minister receive a standing ovation in the parliament of a Roman Catholic state? What a spectacle of shameful reconciliation. Their claim to support and cherish the principles of evangelical Protestantism sounds a bit hollow, even in the ears of their own members, who say that their former moderator sold Ulster down the river to Popery and a united Ireland.
In order for any church to make a protest against what the Bible calls error, then that church must be beyond reproach itself. Perhaps, before they seek to protest against the Pope’s visit, they would make a public statement regarding their position with respect to their own ministers supporting and participating in terrorist inclusive government. Evangelical protestants should not be deceived with this proposed protest from a church that once was separate from ecumenical apostasy but now can have its members and ministers found in the unequal yoke of political coalition.
Rev Mervyn Cotton
I read this article in the Belfast Newsletter with interest and concern; interest as a former licensed minister in the Free Presbyterian Church and concern as a betrayed evangelical protestant. This intended protest from the Free Presbyterians would have been consistent with their separatist principles some years ago, but it is inconsistent with their perceived position at present.
The Free Presbyterian Church watched on as their former moderator, Rev Ian Paisley entered into a power sharing government, against his church’s principles on separation; they did not object when their ministers shared political power with associates of terrorism. The presbytery had no difficulty with one of their senior ministers’ fellowshipping with a former IRA commander and laughing together. The presbytery was silent when some of their ministers called on the Ulster people to support them in political coalition with people that they formerly described as the enemies of Protestantism.
Why does the presbytery of the Free Presbyterian Church come out now to protest against the Papal visit, when one of their ministers had visited Archbishop Brady a few years back? There was no protest then. Why do they claim to be so concerned now about the Pope’s visit when they watch the Martyr’s Memorial minister receive a standing ovation in the parliament of a Roman Catholic state? What a spectacle of shameful reconciliation. Their claim to support and cherish the principles of evangelical Protestantism sounds a bit hollow, even in the ears of their own members, who say that their former moderator sold Ulster down the river to Popery and a united Ireland.
In order for any church to make a protest against what the Bible calls error, then that church must be beyond reproach itself. Perhaps, before they seek to protest against the Pope’s visit, they would make a public statement regarding their position with respect to their own ministers supporting and participating in terrorist inclusive government. Evangelical protestants should not be deceived with this proposed protest from a church that once was separate from ecumenical apostasy but now can have its members and ministers found in the unequal yoke of political coalition.
Rev Mervyn Cotton
Monday, 7 June 2010
Free Presbyterian Pilgrimage to Dublin
Free Presbyterian Pilgrimage to Dublin
The ‘pilgrimage’ to Dublin was led by Rev Ian Paisley, minister of the Martyrs Memorial Free Presbyterian church. Mr Paisley sat in the visitor’s gallery of the Irish Parliament before touring the building; later he visited Government Buildings and was welcomed by the Sinn Fein Dail leader. Rev Paisley also met the Irish president and fellowshipped with Bertie Ahern.
As a former political leader, Mr Paisley is perfectly entitled to make such visits whereby he exhibits his complete political u-turn; but as a former moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, the visit poses many questions. As a Free Presbyterian minister, Rev Paisley preached vehemently against ecumenical dialogue, constantly affirming that any association with Dublin Rule was flirtation with Rome and its teachings. As Rev Paisley, in the eyes of the press has changed his tune, it gives the impression that his church has changed its separatist position as well.
Such a ‘pilgrimage’ will be analysed by political reporters, analysts and politicians; they will undoubtedly see the change in Paisley the politician. On the other hand, Christians will view such a ‘pilgrimage’ with grave concern, dismay and bewilderment; they will be wondering, that if a man such as Rev Ian Paisley can change his political position so dramatically, then what compromises have taken place spiritually. Perhaps they will consider that such a visit would not have been made some years back and then reflect what has happened to a preacher that once supported the Reformed Faith. Will anyone ever notice the change in Paisley the preacher?
Rev Mervyn Cotton.
The ‘pilgrimage’ to Dublin was led by Rev Ian Paisley, minister of the Martyrs Memorial Free Presbyterian church. Mr Paisley sat in the visitor’s gallery of the Irish Parliament before touring the building; later he visited Government Buildings and was welcomed by the Sinn Fein Dail leader. Rev Paisley also met the Irish president and fellowshipped with Bertie Ahern.
As a former political leader, Mr Paisley is perfectly entitled to make such visits whereby he exhibits his complete political u-turn; but as a former moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church, the visit poses many questions. As a Free Presbyterian minister, Rev Paisley preached vehemently against ecumenical dialogue, constantly affirming that any association with Dublin Rule was flirtation with Rome and its teachings. As Rev Paisley, in the eyes of the press has changed his tune, it gives the impression that his church has changed its separatist position as well.
Such a ‘pilgrimage’ will be analysed by political reporters, analysts and politicians; they will undoubtedly see the change in Paisley the politician. On the other hand, Christians will view such a ‘pilgrimage’ with grave concern, dismay and bewilderment; they will be wondering, that if a man such as Rev Ian Paisley can change his political position so dramatically, then what compromises have taken place spiritually. Perhaps they will consider that such a visit would not have been made some years back and then reflect what has happened to a preacher that once supported the Reformed Faith. Will anyone ever notice the change in Paisley the preacher?
Rev Mervyn Cotton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)