Hurt of Hearing Mass reprinted

John Bradford's treatise on The Hurt of Hearing Mass was re-typeset and reprinted some time ago by Focus Christian Ministries Trust based in Lewes East Sussex.

The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland Bookroom has some copies. They are priced at £1.30 plus postage.

More opposition to attending the Mass

Five other Free Presbyterian ministers have spoken out against attending the Mass.

Rev Ivan Foster, retired minister:
Burning Bush website - The true nature of the Mass

Rev David Creane, minister in Lurgan FPC:
Lurgan Mail -

Rev John Greer, minister in Ballymena FPC:
Sermonaudio - Attendance at the Mass forbidden by Scripture

Rev Thomas Martin, minister in Lisburn FPC:
Newsletter: Robinson ought to rethink Mass views

Dr Stephen Pollock, minister in Kilskeery FPC:
Sermonaudio - Why Christians should not attend the Roman Catholic Mass

Update Tuesday 19th April - The Newsletter this morning reports on the opposition of Revs Creane & Greer click here

Update Saturday 23rd April

Other Free Presbyterian ministers who have preached against the Mass in the past:

Office bearers of Presbytery:
Rev Ron Johnstone, minister in Newtownards FPC:
Sermonaudio - The Roman Catholic Mass - What it Means Preached 29th August 2010

Rev Ian Brown, minister in Londonderry FPC:
Sermonaudio - Should A Protestant Attend The Mass? Preached - 1st May 2005

Others:
Rev Paul Fitton, minister in Dungannon FPC:
Sermonaudio - The Mass - A Blasphemous Fable and a Dangerous Deceit- Preached 12th September 2010

Rev Thomas Martin, minister in Lisburn FPC:

Sermonaudio - Reformation: Why we should reject the Mass - Preached 28th October 2007

Dr Alan Cairns, Retired minister:
Sermonaudio - Repudiating the Blasphemous Idolatry of the Roman Mass Preached 7th October 2007

Sermonaudio - The Mass Vs. the Finished Work of Christ - Preached October 1982

Sermonaudio Let the Bible Speak - In Latin or English the Mass Is a Blasphemy - Preached 18th August 2007


Rev William McCrea, minister in Magherafelt FPC

Sermonaudio - The blasphemy of the mass Preached - 30th April 2006


Dr Mark Allison, minister in Malvern FPC, Pa, USA: - Preached - 31st October 2004
Sermonaudio - Lord's Supper Vs. Rome's Mass

Rev Reggie Cranston, minister in Port Hope FPC, Canada:

Sermonaudio - The Mass in the Light of Scripture - Preached 28th July 2002

Orange Chaplain has called for expulsions for attending the Mass

The Newsletter has reported that Rev David McCarthy, an Orange chaplain, has called for members of the Orange Order who attend the Mass to be expelled.

Read the full report here. 

Lets hope they do but I won't hold my breath!!

'The Hurt of Hearing Mass'

The title comes from the writings of the Reformer John Bradford. He was arrested in August 1553 and imprisoned for a time in the tower of London before being moved to other prisons.

Almost two years later on 15th July 1555 at 9 am, John Bradford, aged around 45, along with John Leaf, aged just 19, were led out from Newgate prison to be executed at Smithfield market, situated near to where St Bartholomew's hospital now is in London. Another one of many Protestant martyrs who would rather die than countenance Romanism and the Mass. This was during the reign of 'bloody Queen Mary'. 

Among John Bradford’s final words at the stake were these: O England, England, repent!

Turning to the young man who was being put to death beside him he said: Be of good comfort, brother, for we shall have a happy supper with the Lord tonight. 

As the faggots burned around his feet he repeated the Saviour’s words: …strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

You can read a fuller account of his death in Foxe's Book of Martyrs. 

What a contrast between John Bradford's resolute stand for the truth and the sad compromise and betrayal we have witnessed this past week by Peter Robinson, Tom Elliott, Norman Hamilton [the moderator of the Irish Presbyterian Church] and many other Protestant politicians and ministers of religion. As reported in the Newsletter the weak, craven response of the Orange Order who has let it be known that they will not discipline members who have attended the Mass also stands in stark contrast to the courage of John Bradford. [Although I am informed that no such decision has been made or could be taken prior to a meeting of Grand Lodge.] 

I mention this man John Bradford because while in the tower of London he wrote a tract entitled: The hurt of hearing Mass', which sets forth why he would rather be burned at the stake than countenance the Mass. 

You can read the entire tract online here. 

Here is a synopsis of what he wrote.

He took for his text 1 Kings 18:21: How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him.

In introducing his subject he makes mention of others who have written on this same subject. The margin lists the names of Calvin, Viret, Bullinger, & Hooper.

His proposition is: 

He proceeds to set forth twelve excuses people employ for attendance at the mass. Having outlined these twelve excuses he concludes that they are 'weak and vain'.

He discourses upon the origin of the Mass and the development of the title in church history showing that the Mass was not part of New Testament worship but a later development and corruption.

Next he writes about the evil of the Mass:

He first shows that the mass is a 'most subtle and pernicious enemy of Christ, against his priesthood and against his sacrifice'. 

Secondly he shows that the mass is not only a let [hindrance] but also a destruction of the true worshipping of God.

Thirdly he argues that the mass is not only beside Christ's institution and ordinance, but it is utterly against it and perverteth it horribly. 

He concludes this section by saying:

He next proceeds to show that the Mass violates the first, second, third and fourth commandments. He also argues that it breaks the commandments of the second table of the Moral law generally and particularly. 

Interspersed with his arguments there is the exhortation that people should be willing to die rather than attend the Mass:

The history he relates is of the people of God in Edessa in ancient time who were forewarned that all that attended the house of God that day would be slain. That day there was a greater attendance than normal. 

Having concluded considering how the Mass breaks all ten commandments he presents a further thirty-nine reasons for non-attendance at the Mass. 

He finishes his thesis by answering the twelve reasons people employ to excuse attending the Mass. 

It is worth remembering that this man, along with many others, was prepared to give his life at the stake rather than attend the Mass. Our religious liberties and freedoms were dearly bought. 

May God give us courage to be like them in the resolute stand for the truth and purity of the gospel. 

Sunday Trading laws consultation

Here is the submission I made with respect to the consultation regarding Sunday Trading laws which closed on Friday.

Dear Sir/Madam
I wish to take part in the consultation regarding Sunday Trading hours. I do so on behalf of the congregation of Newtownabbey Free Presbyterian Church and also I believe I reflect the views of many evangelical Christians within the Newtownabbey area who are not members or attenders of the Free Presbyterian Church but attend other evangelical churches. 

We do not want to see any extension or relaxation made to the Sunday Trading hours. We hold to this position because of a number of spiritual and practical convictions. 


1. The Holy Scriptures teach that we are all to remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, Exodus 20:8-11 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Six days are given by God for labour, work, recreation and shopping. One day of the week is to be a sabbath which is given over to the worship of God. Civil authorities have a duty before God to uphold His moral law. We would therefore call upon you to refuse any call to relax the present trading laws.

2. Society loses out by not observing a Sabbath day. Not only spiritually where there is a failure to attend to spiritual matters, but socially as well. Due to our nature we need a day of rest from these secular employments and activities. There is a human cost in failing to observe the Sabbath.

One writer put it like this:  Our bodies are seven-day clocks and they need to be wound up, and if they are not wound up they run down into the grave. No man can continuously break the Sabbath and keep his physical and mental health.

William Wilberforce had this to say: Oh what a blessed day is the Sabbath, which allows us a precious interval wherein to pause, to come out from the thickets of worldly concerns and give ourselves up to heavenly and spiritual concerns. Observation and my own experience have convinced me that there is a special blessing on a right employment of these intervals. Oh what a blessing is Sunday, interposed between the waves of worldly business like the divine path of the Israelites through Jordan. There is nothing in which I would recommend you to be more strictly conscientious than in keeping the Sabbath holy. By this I mean not only abstaining from all becoming sports and common business, but from consuming time in frivolous conversations, paying or receiving visits, which among relations often leads to a sad waste of this precious day. I can truly declare that to me the Sabbath has been invaluable.

Mr Gladstone, the well known British Prime Minister, said on one occasion: Tell me what the young men of England are doing on Sunday and I will tell you what the future of England will be. The religious observance of the Sabbath is a main prop of the religious character of the country. From a moral, social and physical point of view, the observance of the Sabbath is a duty of absolute consequence.

Sir Robert Peel, another Prime Minister, said: I never knew a man escape failure, in either body or mind, who worked seven days a week.

3. Any relaxation of the Sunday trading laws is a false economy. Much is made in this consultation paper about boost[ing] the local economy, benefit[ing] the tourism industry and support[ing] the regeneration of town and city centres.

How can this be? There is not extra money to be spent just because it is Sunday. Not unless we are encouraging people to spend money they don't have and go into debt. The same money will have to be spread over a wider period of time. If people spend more money shopping on Sunday they will spend less Monday to Saturday. Surely this is obvious. With extended opening hours there will follow all the resultant extra staff costs and other running costs for any business. This is not going to help the economy. It is going to harm it by creating extra costs for the same level of return. It is plainly a false economy.

4. The religious liberty of employees will be greatly infringed. Pressure will be brought to bear on those who because of religious convictions do not want to work on the Lord's day. With any relaxation of the law then Sunday will be treated more and more as an ordinary day. Employees whose religious convictions about working on a Sunday will find it harder to obtain and retain employment. Today's Sunday shoppers will be tomorrow's Sunday workers.

5. We do not want to see any relaxation of Bookmakers opening hours. This society has enough problems with gambling addiction without giving even greater opportunities for people to waste their money. Many a family will be dismayed to think that the one day of respite they have with a loved one visiting the bookies has been taken away.

6. We wish to highlight the inbuilt bias of the consultation. There is not sufficient width to the choices in the online response for evangelical Christians to indicate a desire for the present Sunday trading hours to be tightened and not relaxed. This we believe to be wrong.

Precedence has been set for this when in December 2009 the German Constitutional court ruled that shops in Berlin were to fall into line with the law institutionalising Sunday as a day of rest and religious contemplation as contained in Germany’s Basic Law. If this can be done in modern day Germany why can it not be a choice in Northern Ireland. It is one which many would chose. 

Honouring the memory of Jesus Christ is more important than honouring the memory of anyone else

It is being reported that Peter Robinson is going to attend the funeral of murdered Roman Catholic police officer Ronan Kerr. This means that he is going to attend the Roman Catholic Mass. Back in the month of February this year Peter Robinson indicated that he would do this.
To read more of what he said then, click on this link for the Belfast Telegraph report. 

Republican terrorists, encouraged by seeing those who previously engaged in the same activity now elevated to high office and pandered to at every turn, are increasing their capacity to maim and kill. The sympathy of those whose trade in the past has been murder and mayhem is pure 'cant'.

Peter Robinson would be regularly briefed on the prevailing security situation here in Ulster. He may well have calculated that this day would arrive sooner or later in Northern Ireland where sadly a police officer, and a Roman Catholic one at that, would be murdered. That may well be what lay behind his comments some weeks ago. His announcement then was to pave the way for him actually attending the mass.

It is not being disrespectful to the dead to say that because of your religious beliefs you cannot attend the Roman Catholic Mass. As pointed out previously by the Free Presbyterian Church, the chief Jewish Rabbi refused to enter Westminster Abbey at the time of Princess Diana's funeral because of his religious beliefs. He was praised for the manner in which he conducted himself.

It might bring short term political advantage to Peter Robinson but it will do no one any good to dishonour the name of Jesus Christ in this way. To a Bible believer the Mass is a 'blasphemy' as the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of Ireland rightly state. It is an attack upon the finished work of Jesus Christ and because of this no Protestant should attend the Mass.

Honouring the memory of Jesus Christ is more important than honouring the memory of any one else. Christ and His honour must come first every time. To love God above and before everything and everyone else is the first great commandment; to love our neighbour is the second great commandment, Matt 22:37-39: 
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

This same principle was repeated by the Lord Jesus in a different context in Luke 14:26,27:
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

For whatever reason Peter Robinson has reversed this divine order. He has put the honour of his neighbour before the honour of Jesus Christ.

In putting the honour of Christ first it will seem at times that we are hating others we love dearly. But this is what it means to put Christ first in our lives and this is what the New Testament calls upon us to do. We cannot profess to follow Christ and neglect His word: If ye love me keep my commandments, He said in John 14:15. 

There is a reproach that must be borne when faithfully doing so. No doubt there will be much invective directed at those who oppose Peter Robinson attending the Mass. It will be caricatured as unloving and dishonouring to a murder victim.

Ronan Kerr deserves our respect and his family deserve our sympathy. Every Bible believer believes murder is wrong on every account. There are however other ways to honour the memory of someone wickedly murdered as Ronan Kerr has been. The dead can be respected and Christ's honour maintained. Going to the Mass does not do this.

Pageviews for the last month

Here is a breakdown of pageviews for the blog for the month of March. I appreciate all who take time to peruse the blog. 

What it is to preach Christ

In reading one of C. H. Spurgeon's sermons I came across these words where he defines what it is to preach Christ:

My friends, I do not believe it is preaching Christ and him crucified, to give our people a batch of philosophy every Sunday morning and evening, and neglect the truth of this Holy Book. I do not believe it is preaching Christ and him crucified, to leave out the main cardinal doctrines of the Word of God, and preach a religion which is all a mist and a haze, without any definite truths whatever. 

I take it that man does not preach Christ and him crucified, who can get through a sermon without mentioning Christ’s name once; nor does that man preach Christ and him crucified who leaves out the Holy Spirit’s work, who never says a word about the Holy Ghost, so that indeed the hearers might say, “We do not so much as know whether there be a Holy Ghost.” 

And I have my own private opinion that there is no such a thing as preaching Christ and him crucified, unless you preach what now-a-days is called Calvinism. I have my own ideas, and those I always state boldly. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in his dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering, love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the peculiar redemption which Christ made for his elect and chosen people; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having believed. Such a gospel I abhor. 

The gospel of the Bible is not such a gospel as that. We preach Christ and him crucified in a different fashion, and to all gainsayers we reply, “We have not so learned Christ.”

Bible exhibition 2

At our Soul Winners Convention Dr David Allen put on display a replica of a timeline of the English Bible. 

Bible exhibition Part 1

At our Soul Winners Convention Mr Alastair Bonar, one of our members, put on display a number of old Bibles he owns.

Thought for the day

Faith, without trouble or fighting, is a suspicious faith; for true faith is a fighting, wrestling faith.

Attributed to Ralph Erskine, well known Scottish preacher in Reformed circles, who lived from 1685-1752. 

Sandown FPC wins its court case on Sodomy

It has been announced today in the Belfast High Court that Sandown FPC has won its case against the Advertising Standards Agency. A good day for the truth and freedom of expression!

To read details of the case and the ruling please click on the following links:

Church advert breached code

Church challenges sodomy ad ban

Judge overturns ASA sodomy ad ban decision

Updated 23/03/11
The Newsletter & Belfast Telegraph have further reports on this court case

Newsletter - Victorious minister will not be gloating

Belfast Telegraph - Church’s anti-gay advert was freedom of expression: judge

What are they so afraid of?

The Guardian reports that the new 'Free Schools' being encouraged by the coalition government will not be able to teach Creationism in any science classes. Not that I ever expected they would be!

For fuller details click - Free schools will not teach creationism, says Department for Education

This surely begs the question: what are these secular educationalists afraid of? Can evolution not stand up to scrutiny in the classroom? If creationism is the outlandish notion of fundamentalists as they claim then surely it will be easily seen to be the case when considered alongside evolution, if evolution is indeed scientific fact as they claim. After all, truth is never afraid of the searchlight, it is falsehood that loves the dark and loves to go unchallenged.

It would seem that these secular educationalists are somewhat afraid that when their pet theory, which at its core is fuelled by an innate desire to reject the existence of God, is examined alongside alternative explanations for the origin of the universe it might be found wanting. That it might be discovered to be less than scientific fact. 

If evolution & creationism were both taught would it be discovered that evolution is also a faith based belief. This has been acknowledged in the past by evolutionists. 

For example in the introduction to one edition of Darwin's The Origin of Species it says:

The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproven theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation - both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof. 

L. Harrison Matthews, FRS, Introduction to Darwin's Origin of Species, J M Dent & Sons Ltd, London 1971, page xi.

If evolution is faith based then creationism has the same right to be examined in the science classroom as evolution.

School Choir singing at 60th anniversary regional rally

Some photos of the joint school choir [Bangor & Newtownabbey Independent Christian schools] which took part in the 60th anniversary regional rally in Martyrs Memorial FPC last night.

Practising beforehand in the Paisley Jubilee Church

Taking part in the service

What did St Patrick really believe? Part 3

Here is a link to a sermon preached some years ago on the subject:

What did St Patrick really believe?

For Transcript of Part 1 click here
For Transcript of Part 2 click here


Transcript Part 3

II. Patrick’s teaching on the matter of salvation. 

The most important matters are: what did he teach about the matter of salvation? What does he teach about Jesus Christ? That will be the chief test of his orthodoxy. We have his creed to consult which is available from his confession.

Patrick had a deep and accurate knowledge of the Scriptures. You cannot read his confession through without marvelling at the rich knowledge of the Word of God which he possessed, even though he confesses: I have not read like others, who have been well imbued with sacred learning. He certainly had read his Bible.

It is God’s Word alone that is to direct us in the matter of salvation.

He believed in the deity and Godhead of Jesus Christ. It was Patrick who is renowned for illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity by the use of the shamrock. While preaching before the king of Meath at Tara he illustrated the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity by the three-leaved shamrock.

The belief in the doctrine of the Trinity necessitates the acceptance of the deity and Godhead of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Ghost. You cannot have a Trinity of persons without there being equality of the persons in that Trinity. He had right views of Christ and the Holy Spirit. His confession is distinctly Trinitarian and evangelical.

He believed in the necessity of being born again. Another quote from his confession states: 

I am greatly a debtor to God who hath vouchsafed me such great grace that many people by my means should be born again to God and clergy should be ordained everywhere for them. I pray those who believe and fear God, whosoever may condescend to look into or receive this writing which Patrick the sinner, though unlearned, wrote in Ireland, if I have done or established any little thing according to God’s will, that no man ever say that my ignorance did it, but think and let it verily be believed that it was the gift of God.

He believed himself to be a sinner and that all sinners are in need of being born again.

He became an evangelist. His name is associated with many places both north and south of Ireland. Temple-Patrick, Down-Patrick, Sea-Patrick, Croagh-Patrick, Leck-Patrick, Inch-Patrick. There is also Patrick’s chair in the Clogher Valley.

He knew what it was to trust God. From his writings it is clear that he had a strong belief in the guiding and overruling providence of God. He accepted the providences of God that brought him away from his family and as a slave to ireland. He accepted that this affliction ‘corrected’ him and brought him to ‘know God’.

He learned the truth of this text of Scripture: And call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me, Ps 50:15.

In his day of trouble on the slopes of Slemish he cried to the Lord for salvation and the Lord delivered him and he went on to glorify the Lord by a life lived to the service of God and man.

May this island again redound to the sound of the gospel which Patrick preached. May God be pleased again to move among the Irish with such God glorifying results.

The creed of St. Patrick 

As given in His own confession:
I am not able, nor would it be right to be silent on such great benefits and such great grace as [God] hath vouchsafed unto me in the land of my captivity, for this is our recompence, that after we have been corrected and brought to know God, we should exalt and confess His wondrous works before every nation which is under heaven

God the Father 
that there is none other God, nor ever was, nor shall be hereafter, except God the Father, unbegotton, without beginning, from whom is all beginning, upholding all things as we have said

God the Son
and His Son, Jesus Christ, whom we acknowledge to have been always with the Father before the beginning of the world, spiritually with the Father, in an ineffable manner begotton before all beginning

Christ the Creator 
and by Him were made things visible and invisible; and being made man, and having overcome death, He was received into heaven unto the Father

Christ the preeminent One
And the Father hath given unto Him all power, above every name, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and God

Christ the coming Judge
Whom we believe and we look for His coming, who is soon about to be judge of quick and dead, who will render unto every man according to his works, and hath poured into us abundantly the gift of the Holy Ghost and the pledge of immortality, who maketh the faithful and obedient to become sons of God the Father and joint heirs with Christ. Whom we confess and worship, one God in the Trinity of the sacred Name. For He Himself hath said by the prophet: Call upon me in the day of thy tribulation and I will deliver thee. 

What did St Patrick really believe? Part 2

Here is a link to a sermon preached some years ago on the subject:

What did St Patrick really believe?

For Transcript of Part 1 click here

Transcript Part 2:

I. He had no connection whatsoever with Romanism. 

Roman Catholicism loves to speak of Patrick as one of their own. They call chapels by his name, they place his statue above entrance doors, attired in full ecclesiastical costume, with a great mitre on his head and a formidable crozier in his hand. These are articles of dress which the simple missionary in all probability never either saw or wore. What is certain is that he had no connection whatsoever with Romanism.

Romanism was not known in Ireland at the time of Patrick. Rome can hardly with justification make a claim on Patrick when history teaches us that Romanism itself was not established in Ireland to many years after Patrick lived. In fact the Papacy was only developing on the continent of Europe at the time of Patrick and not fully developed there until c.a. 600 AD.

Biblical Christianity had come to Britain with the serving soldiers of the invading Roman armies. The Roman armies left in 410 AD. Romanism only came to Britain with Augustine arrival at Canterbury in 597 AD, at least 100 yrs. after Patrick’s death. The story is told of Augustine’s attempt at bringing the Celtic Church under his and Rome’s control. The Celtic representatives had previously decided that whether Augustine rose up from his seat when meeting them would indicate whether they were meeting as equals or not. Needless to say he did not rise to meet the Celtic representatives so they wanted nothing to do with him.

Romanism only came to Ireland around 1100 AD when Pope Adrian give Ireland as a dowry to the then English King to subdue and bring under the control of Rome.

Patrick never claimed Papal authority. In his confession which exists to this day we have in some detail the circumstances under which he came to Ireland. There is not a word said about either Rome or the Pope. An omission which would be simply inconceivable if he had been an emissary of the pope. With the success that he enjoyed surely Rome would have taken credit if she had sent him. Many letters of Pope Leo I from 440-461 are extant yet say nothing about Ireland and Patrick. He himself never appeals to any papal commission when his authority was challenged.

He was ‘Presbyterian’ in Church order. Patrick ordained bishops in every Church he founded. Some say it was 365 churches, others that it was 700 churches he founded. Whatever the total it is undenialable  that for every church Patrick founded he ordained bishops. This Presbyterianism not Prelacy or Popery.

His family did not believe in celibacy. Patrick states that both his father and grandfather were ecclesiastics, yet both were married. They were hardly following a cardinal doctrine of Romanism.

No mention of the other tenets of Romanism. In Patrick's writings there is no mention whatsoever of auricular confession, purgatory, the honour of Mary, the mass or any anointing of the dead or any other distinctive Roman Catholic doctrine.

He never was primate of Ireland. It is well known that neither in Patrick’s day or for hundreds of years afterwards was there any such person as either an archbishop or bishop of Armagh. Even Episcopalian writers acknowledge this.

One thing we can be absolutely sure about regarding Patrick - He was no Romanist!

To be continued

What did St Patrick really believe?

Here is a link to a sermon preached some years ago on the subject:

What did St Patrick really believe?

Transcript Part 1

March 17th is designated as St. Patrick’s day in which the patron saint of Ireland is supposed to be remembered. More and more this day is being marked by parades, festivals and carnivals which in the main are but an excuse for a day of worldly entertainment, sinful pleasure and amusement during which liberal measures of alcohol are consumed. Much of what takes place has very little connection if any at all with the life or preaching of St. Patrick.

St. Patrick is believed to have been a native of mainland Britain, Scotland it seems has the strongest claim as the place of his birth, during the early part of the 5th century.

As a young lad, at the age of 16, he was taken captive by raiders from his father’s farm and brought to Ireland and sold as a slave, where it is believed he tended sheep on the slopes of Slemish. His captivity became a means of blessing. It was the means of bringing about the conversion of his soul. Ireland may not have been the land of his natural birth but it was certainly the land of his spiritual birth.

We are privileged to have two works which have come down to us from the hand of Patrick. They are his ‘Confession’, and his ‘Letter to the Christians’. In his confession he has the following to say about his conversion to Christ:

I knew not the true God, and I was carried in captivity into Ireland.... and there the Lord opened the sense of my unbelief, that even though late I should remember my sins, and be converted with my whole heart unto the Lord my God.

After six years of slavery he escaped from his master, and making his way to the coast, procured a passage on board a boat, and after enduring many hardships, was able to be reunited with his parents in Scotland.

However he was not to be long in his father’s house. He had witnessed the darkness of Ireland and desired to bring it some of his light. A remarkable dream which he had led him back to Ireland. In his dream he saw a man coming to him as if from Ireland, whose name was Victoricius, bearing innumerable letters. He gave one to Patrick and the opening words were The voice of the Irish. As he read this in his dream he heard a call coming from the western sea: 

We entreat thee holy youth, to come and walk henceforth among us. 

Finally he made up his mind to return to Ireland as a missionary and spent the remainder of his days here. He is believed to have died on 17th March either 465 AD or 493 AD. He is said to be buried in Downpatrick. 

There is a local connection with St. Patrick and Templepatrick. According to tradition St. Patrick, during his time in Ireland is thought to have baptised converts at an ancient well in the village and is credited with founding a Church which stood in the area of the old graveyard, where the Templetown Mausoleum now stands.

What did St. Patrick really believe? We can discern this from his works.

To be continued

The unscripturalness of observing Lent

Titus 3 v 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 

Today is the beginning of Lent. Much reference is made to this observance. Sadly many Protestants are more and more being taken up with this religion of works.

I. The definition of Lent. 

Lent is the 40 day period before Easter, excluding Sundays, it begins on Ash Wednesday and ends on Holy Saturday, the day before Easter Sunday. This year Lent begins on 9th March and will end on 23rd April.

Sundays are excluded because this is the day on which Christ arose from the dead, making it an inappropriate day to supposedly fast and mourn over sin. On Sunday we must celebrate Christ's resurrection for our salvation. It is Friday on which we commemorate His death for our sins. The Sundays of the year are days of celebration and the Fridays of the year are days of penance.

There are 40 days in Lent because 40 is the traditional number of discipline, devotion, and preparation in the Bible. Thus Moses stayed on the mount of God for 40 days, the spies were in the land for 40 days, Elijah travelled 40 days before he reached the cave where he had his vision, Nineveh was given 40 days to repent, and most importantly, prior to undertaking His ministry, Jesus Christ spent 40 days in wilderness praying and fasting, Matthew 4:2.

Since Lent is a period of prayer and fasting, it is supposedly fitting for Christians to imitate their Lord with a similar 40 day period of penance. Christ used this 40 day period of prayer and fasting to prepare for His ministry, which culminated in His death and resurrection, and thus it is supposedly fitting for Christians to imitate Him with a 40 day period of prayer and fasting to prepare for the celebration of His ministry's climax, Good Friday and Easter Sunday. 

II. The purpose of Lent. 

Lent is observed as part of the system of Romanism that believes that salvation is obtained by human effort through the sacraments of the Church. They speak of imitating Christ. It is the old falsehood of penance, showing sufficient sorrow for sin to merit the favour of God. 

The key to understanding the meaning of Lent is simple: 

Preparation for Baptism and for renewing baptismal commitment lies at the heart of the season. Lent is about conversion, turning our lives more completely over to Christ and his way of life. That always involves giving up sin in some form. The goal is not just to abstain from sin for the duration of Lent but to root sin out of our lives forever. Conversion means leaving behind an old way of living and acting in order to embrace new life in Christ. Lent is the primary time for celebrating the Sacrament of Penance, because Lent is the season for baptismal preparation and baptismal renewal. 

During Lent a person is apply ashes to show association with sorrow for sin. 

III. The unscripturalness of Lent. 

Search the Scriptures diligently, from Old Testament to New, and you will find no mention of Jews or Christians observing an annual period of 40 days of fasting and abstinence preceding the festival of the Passover, yet today most of the Christian world observes a 40 day period called Lent. Christ fasted forty days before His earthly ministry began not before His death. 

It is actually the mark of apostate religion to command to abstain from meats, 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

Roman Catholicism states that the reasons for celebrating her major feasts, when they do, are many and varied. However:

In general it is true that many of them have at least an indirect connection with the pre-Christian [pagan] feasts celebrated about the same time of year, such as Christmas and Easter. 

They also acknowledge that no observance of Lent is found in the early Church.

Where did the concept of Lent come from then? The 40 days abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess and her son. This is where the 'mother and child' idea comes from.

Numerous examples have been found in history of the old pagans observing a period to mark the birth of spring. The Babylonians, Egyptians, and others among them. It was usually preceded by a feast called a 'carnival'.

Lent is part of the concept of salvation by works and sacraments. However, salvation and peace with God are not obtained in this way. That which the Lord Jesus would have us to do is come and confess our sins to Christ and be saved from them for ever. 

In this text of Scripture we are simply taught the way of salvation. There is no great mystery about it, yet it is becomes the hardest thing for men and women to discover because of the pride of the human heart.

1. Salvation is not by human effort. Paul rules out works of righteousness which we have done as a means of obtaining salvation.

It is in our fallen nature to want to do every thing for ourselves. It is a basic lesson every child has to learn as they grow up, namely that they cannot do everything by themselves. They may want to, they may push away the help that is offered but they will have to learn that help is required.

The same mentality is applied to the matter of salvation. Sinners want to play at least a part in their salvation. They are happy for God to do a part and they also want to do a part. Not so. It is not by works.

It is not even by works of righteousness. People in general have their own definition of good works. It varies from one person to another. In doing so these people are convinced that God will be pleased and His favour obtained. Not so according to this text of Scripture. Surely Lent falls into that category.

2. Salvation comes from God’s mercy. Man cannot merit or earn salvation. Neither does he deserve it.

There is nothing is us that would attract God’s blessing. The only thing we deserve is to be cast away from Him as an unclean thing. Nothing that we do will ever bring us to the place where God will find us worthy of His favour.

Therefore we should stop trying and have done with all that is associated with this false way of salvation.

Salvation is by free grace. Salvation is the free gift of God. It flows from God’s infinite mercy, love and grace. We cannot earn it but we can receive it as a free gift. God out of the abundance of His mercy has provided salvation. He moved first towards fallen mankind. Man does not merit it, God freely bestows it.

Sinners need to fall upon God’s mercy and obtain salvation in this way, Micah 7:18.

3. Conversion is by the Holy Spirit. You do not grow into conversion as Rome claims.

Salvation is by the renewing of the Holy Ghost. It is the Spirit of God that makes dead sinners alive. He renews that spiritual life which died in Adam when he sinned. Spiritual life is brought into our hearts once more by the Spirit.

Conversion is not a process but an act. Conversion takes place in an instant. A sinner is either dead or alive. He/she is not in between somewhere. He/she is not half alive or half dead.

Salvation is by the washing of regeneration. Regenerating grace is here meant. We need to be born of the grace and power of the Spirit. It is comparable to washing with water for its purity and cleansing virtue, hence all who are regenerated and sanctified, are said to be washed and cleansed, having their hearts purified by faith, and their consciences purged from sin by the blood of Christ.

It is the washing of regeneration we need to save us from our sins not the washing of water. It is only the blood of Jesus Christ that will cleanse from sin. 

Titus 3:5 teaches a different ay of salvation as compared to what lies begin the concept of Lent. 

Interesting News Items

Some interesting news items:

1. Britain has the most anti-family tax system in Europe

Daily Mail - How UK offers the worst tax deal for traditional families
ConservativeHome - Britain has most anti-family tax system in Europe

2. Britain’s abortion laws currently leave vulnerable women without the most basic support and help to which they should be entitled

ConservativeHome - Nadine Dorries MP

3. Equality Commission has to apology for its smear of Christians.

Christian Institute - Equality Commission sorry for Christian ‘infection’ jibe

Equality and Human Rights Commission - website statement

Johns v Derby City Council
3 March 2011

Earlier this week the case of Johns v Derby City Council, in which the Commission had intervened, attracted some attention. Unfortunately a mistake within our legal submission led to an inference that we did not intend and which was misconstrued as suggesting that the Commission equates Christian moral views with an infection. This oversight was caused by a drafting error in our submissions to the court. This should have been picked up in our internal clearance process for the legal documentation and does not represent the position of the Commission in any way.

Furthermore, the Commission entirely rejects any view (as reported in the media) that rights in relation to sexual orientation ‘take precedence’ over religious rights. The Commission fully upholds the rights of looked-after children to be supported in their chosen religion or that of their family, in the context of the paramount importance of the welfare of the child.

The Equality Act provides protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief as well as on the grounds of sexual orientation and the Commission has producedextensive guidance to explain this legislation, which was introduced by Parliament.

The Commission has written to Mr and Mrs Johns to apologise.

Can you imagine the outcry there would have been in the media if this had been the other way around and a church or minister had branded sodomy 'an infection'? We would have had every liberal 'do-gooder', human rights spokesperson etc, etc branding such comments as homophobic etc. Yet when it is Christians who are slandered in this way there is not a cheep out of any of them. So much for equality!!

Sunday trading laws consultation

There is presently a consultation taking place by the Department for Social Development regarding the extension of Sunday trading laws.

The Independent Orange Institution has made its views known here.

We would encourage Christians to make their views known on this subject. Submissions can be made to:

Social Policy Unit
Department for Social Development (NI)
4th Floor, Lighthouse Building
1 Cromac Place
Gasworks Business Park
Belfast
BT7 2JB
Telephone: (028) 9082 9521
email: social.policy@dsdni.gov.uk

Submissions must be received by the Department of Social Development no later than 8th April 2011.

Special Soul Winners Convention

For over 30 years our congregation has held our Soul Winners Convention meetings. This year we are marking the 400th anniversary of the translation of the Authorised Version.

Thought for the day from C. H. Spurgeon

I came across this quote from C H Spurgeon today:

The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the Church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the Church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses.

Christian Institute Statement on Christian Foster Case

The Christian Institute has sent out the following release about the Christian Foster case involving Mr & Mrs Johns

The media has reported the case of Mr and Mrs Johns, a Christian couple who faced difficulties in fostering children because of their views on homosexuality.

Much media reporting on this issue, and even some comments by Christians, have, in our view, been wide of the mark.

The impression has been given that the High Court has ruled that Christians who believe that homosexuality is morally wrong cannot foster children. This is not true. No such ruling has been made.

Christians are deeply concerned about the dramatic comments by the High Court judges in this case. It is no surprise that national newspapers are drawing attention to what has been said. Derby City Council seems to want a gay rights test to assess any potential foster parent. If so, this Council will be encouraged by the High Court, but thankfully other councils are free to take a different view.

Equality laws have closed down adoption agencies and are now being used against pillars of the community, such as Mr and Mrs Johns in this case and Mr and Mrs Bull, the Christian B&B owners from Cornwall.

The last government created a conflict of laws. It is for Parliament to unscramble this conflict. That is what we want to see.

Let us pray for those in authority that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. (1 Tim 2:1-4).

Let us also pray that those in authority will defend vulnerable children and give them the opportunity to be raised in a loving home.

A full statement by The Christian Institute is available here.

What is specifically wrong with new versions? Part 3

A comparison can be made between some verses in the Authorised Version and the corresponding verses in the new versions where the full extent of the attack that has been made upon the fundamental doctrines of the Word of God is demonstrated.

The nature of the changes.
1. The Deity of Christ.
1 Tim 3:16: 
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh… AV
No one can deny how great is the secret of our religion. He appeared in human form… GNB
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body… NIV

Rom 14:10,12: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. AV
You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.
So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. NIV

These texts in the Authorised Version emphasis that Christ was God of very God. However, modern version change these verses thus removing the clear testimony of Scripture to the fact that Christ was God manifest in the flesh.

2. Eternal Sonship of Christ.
Micah 5:2:
… yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. AV
… But out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times. GNB

… out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from old, from ancient times. NIV

'Ancient times' does not necessarily mean eternity past. This accommodates those who deny the eternal sonship of Christ. 

Hebrews 1:5:
Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? AV

You are my Son; today I have become your Father. GNB

You are my Son, today I have become your Father. NIV

The eternal sonship of Christ is attacked here. God did not become His Father as these new versions state, He was always His Father.

3. The Virgin Birth.
Isa 7:14,
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. AV
A young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him 'Immanuel'. GNB
Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name immanuel. RSV

Luke 2:33:
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. AV
The child's father and mother were amazed. GNB
The child's father and mother marvelled. NIV

There is a weakening of the evidence for the virgin birth. Joseph was not Christ's father. That is a blasphemy which undermines the whole work of redemption. If Christ was not safeguarded from original by virtue of His virgin birth then He could save no one but had his own sin to answer for.

4. The Atonement.
Col 1:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. AV
By whom we are set free, that is our sins are forgiven. GNB
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. NIV

The reference to the blood of Christ which is essential to redemption is removed. The blood atonement was one particular doctrine hated by Westcott and Hort.

There are many of other places where changes like this occur. Surely this is no coincidence in the light of the fact that the revising committee set out to make doctrinal changes. They certainly accomplished their purpose.

The number of changes.
The text which the New International Version and the Good News Bible come from shows multitude of changes.

There are 481 changes which substantially affect the meaning. There are 44 changes which involve doctrine. There are 212 changes to the names of Deity, 75 changes to the name of Jesus, 44 to the name of Christ, 35 for Lord, 32 for God, 26 for other names of deity. More than 150 pronouns which refer to Deity are omitted. This cannot be incidental!

The Greek text underlying the New Testament in modern versions is approximately 2,500 words shorter than the Greek text underlying the New Testament in the Authorised Version. This is nearly 2% of the whole. It is the equivalent of removing 1 and 2 Peter from the Bible.

The sad conclusion to come to is that modern translations are corrupt Bibles because they come from corrupt manuscripts translated by corrupt men with corrupt motives.

No believer who loves the pure Word of God should have anything to do with them.

Why we use only the Authorised Version of the Scriptures Part 2

II. Why a raft of new translations? 

The lay person has his/her reason for new translations - the Scriptures must be made more understandable, more easily read etc. That is a false premise in itself for natural man will never understand the Scriptures by himself, no matter what versions are made available. The work of the Holy Spirit is needed.

But we need to dig a little deeper to find out the real reasons why new translations have come unto the market.

Over a period of years there were a number of new translations leading up to the A.V. 1611 and its editing of 1769. From then until the late 1800s there was no new translations. In 1881 a new Greek text was issued by Westcott and Hort and there followed what was known as the Revised Version. From then till now these new versions have multiplied. What were the real reasons for a new translation?

1. To facilitate ecumenism. At the time when the Revised Version appeared the Oxford Movement was in full flow with its Romanising tendencies. There was a clamour among ecumenists to have the Authorised Version superseded. The Revisionists by and large were in full sympathy with the Oxford Movement.

The Revised Version appeared in the form of a 'Common Bible', the first page said in large letters: AN ECUMENICAL BIBLE. The New English Bible which appeared sometime later stated in the preface that its goal was: the promotion of the ecumenical church and the oneness of the people of God in all sorts of Churches worldwide. The Authorised Version was too much a Protestant Bible and this would never do in the new ecumenical, Romanising climate that was developing.

Examples of this ecumenical facilitation is found in the way in which these new translations treat specific texts: The Good News Bible/Today's English Bible puts Peter as the rock. The New International Version has a footnote that says Peter is the rock. The New English Bible puts the word 'tradition' in 1 Cor 11:23 which gives justification for the mass.

2. A hatred of the truth. Westcott and Hort were the two main Revisioners. Hort gloried in the fact that a Unitarian had been invited unto the Committee. Had he been forced to resign when this became more widely known Westcott would have resigned with him. 

Both denied the vicarious atonement and the bodily resurrection of Christ. Hort called it 'an immoral counterfeit of the truth'. They both favoured the Larger Hope, Darwinism and O.T. Higher Criticism. Westcott said: No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. Hort said: I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden existed. They were on record as saying that they fully intended to bring about doctrinal changes by their revisions. Sodomites later on sat on the New International Version translation committee. 

How can men who openly opposed and ridiculed orthodox Christianity ever be trusted to compile a new translation of the Scriptures? The Scriptures ask: Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one, Job 14:4.

3. A hatred for the Authorised version. The new translation was never about updating the words. It stemmed from a hatred of the Authorised Version. In 1851 Hort called the Greek text that underlay the Authorised Version: the villainous Textus Receptus. The full quote reads: 

I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with the villainous Textus Receptus. Think of that vile Textus Receptus leaning entirely on late manuscripts.

This was said even though he had read very little of the Greek N.T. Hort is said by other critics to have organised his entire argument to depose the received Text which underlies the Authorised Version. The man was prejudiced against this Majority Text. He believed that the most accurate texts were those discovered in the Vatican and in a monastery on Mt Sinai. These were characterised by omissions. The reason they were the oldest was because they had been set aside as corrupt. Yet Westcott & Hort relied heavily upon them.

The modern translations come mainly from the manuscripts that had been discarded. A reading which has 80-90% support from the Received/Majority Text would be discarded in favour of a reading from these corrupt manuscripts just because it came from these manuscripts. Westcott & Hort showed a distinct prejudice against the Authorised Version from the very outset. The new translation wasn't an effort to provide a faithful translation it was a prejudiced attempt to discard the Authorised Version.

Free Presbyterian Church's official response to Peter Robinson's comments

The following statement has been issued by the Moderator and Clerk on behalf of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster:

In light of recent criticism the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster wishes to publicly reaffirm its opposition to the Roman Catholic service commonly termed ‘The Mass’. In this ecumenical age, the false notion is propagated that there is little difference between the Roman Catholic Mass and the simple Communion Service as practised by Protestants. However, there is a vast difference. The historic creeds of Protestant Churches underline this difference by referring to the Mass as ‘blasphemous’, ‘idolatry’ and ‘injurious to the work of Christ.’

The reason for these statements is that the Mass purports to be a continuation of the sacrifice of Christ. It leads sinners to trust in the priest, the Mass, and the church rather than in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest who made the one perfect sacrifice for sins forever (Hebrews 10v12). His is the only sacrifice that can deliver from sin.

Our objection to attendance at the Mass has nothing to do with bigotry or lack of respect for others as our critics often claim. During the funeral service of Princess Diana, the Chief Rabbi, on a point of religious principle, declined to enter the Cathedral and was praised for showing his respect by going as far as the entrance. Yet we and other Evangelical Protestants are often castigated and denigrated when, out of love and loyalty to our Saviour, we cannot countenance the ‘sacrifice of the Mass.’

Moderator: Rev Ron Johnstone

Clerk: Rev Ian Brown


Update
Rev Thomas Martin, minister of Lisburn FPC, has also made some comments about this matter calling on Peter Robinson to reconsider his statement, as reported in the Newsletter, see here

Update [Friday 25th Feb]
The Newsletter have carried a report on the statement which the Officers of Presbytery released, see here

Someone else sees the folly of Peter Robinson's position

The news media are carrying the story that Peter Robinson has let it be known that he would attend a Roman Catholic mass.
To read more see Newsletter & Belfast Telegraph

Mr Wallace Thompson, a DUP member and former adviser to Nigel Dodds, on behalf of the Evangelical Protestant Society, released a statement which is on their website

NO EVANGELICAL PROTESTANT SHOULD EVER ATTEND THE POPISH MASS 

The Evangelical Protestant Society fully respects the principles of civil and religious liberty, but our long-standing position as a Society is that no evangelical Protestant should attend the Roman Catholic mass under any circumstances.  We hold to the mainstream historical view as summarised by, for example, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Thirty-Nine Articles.

It will therefore come as no surprise that the Evangelical Protestant Society does not share the First Minister's position on this matter. 

We note that the First Minister has stressed that his decision is a personal one and that others of his colleagues might have a different view.  In light of this, we would therefore hope that no attempts will now be made by the usual suspects to demonise or persecute those evangelical Protestants who come to conclusions contrary to those of Mr Robinson.

21 February 2011

At least someone else sees the folly of this 'new politics'. It may please the Romanists and the ecumenists in society but it will not please God. Peter Robinson's new views and the historic Protestant position can't both be right. One or the other must be wrong and it is not the historic Protestant position. 

The 'Rubicon' was crossed in 2006 when Peter Robinson and others thought it all right to share power with those whose trade has been murder and mayhem in this Province for 40 years. With that sacrifice of principle the floodgates have opened. It will be one issue after another where historic Protestant Biblical positions are jettisoned. What will it be next: abortion, Sunday opening?

It is mere semantics for Peter Robinson to say that 'I wouldn’t be going as an act of worship, I would be going as an act of respect for the individual'. He may well indeed be paying his respects but he is also attending an act of worship. Every Roman Catholic funeral is a mass. The 39 articles of the Church of Ireland rightly state that the mass is 'a blasphemous fable and a dangerous deceit'. No right thinking, God honouring, Bible believer would want to presence themselves where such a blasphemy was being enacted. 

This blasphemy is directed at Jesus Christ. The mass claims to be a reenactment of Calvary which the Bible teaches was a finished work needing no repetition. To attend the mass is therefore no insignificant matter. The honour of Jesus Christ and His finished work is at stake. 

It seems political calculation is more important than Bible principle!