Studies in the Scriptures. sounds good...?

[...] we are deluded if we think we can read the Bible alone by ourselves. All interpretation of Scripture is built upon what has gone on before us. In the nineteenth century a small group in the United States decided to have done with the historic teaching of the church and study Scripture for themselves from scratch. They published a journal recording the results of their Bible study called Studies in the Scriptures. And so the sect known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses was born. Bible study torn asunder from the teaching of the historic Christian church is a recipe for deviation. As it transpired, the Jehovah’s Witnesses did nothing really new; they merely reproduced the fourth-century heresy of Arianism. – (italics original) p18, The Work of Christ byRobert Letham

Yearning for something definite

From the book, Australian Christian Life from 1788 by Iain Murray, Alexander Edgar said:

'One of the most striking features of the present day - so the press is reiterating - is the drifting away from dogmatic preaching. It is argued that if you preach dogmatic theology the people will turn from you. I assure you that I do not believe this, for I am convinced that the heart of humanity wants something definite. We must not misunderstand the boldness and directness of that firm declaration of Christ, "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him" (John 3:36)'.

This is not my first time hearing something along this line, but what was different this time was that Edgar was saying this in 1901. The drift towards pragmatism and watering down of doctrinal stance seems to have been going on for a long time. But then the warnings against it also have been given for a long time. We, Christians, need to take heed of this warning today.

Marks of true revivals

Once or twice, I heard some friends saying that there had been no revivals in Australia. I didn't know how to respond to that when I heard it because I had no idea whether that was true or not, and also because my understanding of revival seemed to be somewhat different to what those friends emphasised.

Recently I have been reading Australian Christian Life from 1788: An introduction and and anthology. In this fascinating book (which I will be posting about later on), John Watsford is introduced. According to the author, Iain Murray, John Watsford was the first outstanding preacher to be born in Australia.

What John Watsford says about true revivals is instructive. Referring to the revivals that occurred in areas around Parramatta, Liverpool, and Windsor in 1840 - 1841, which he himself witnessed, he wrote:

These were true revivals. The fruit soon appeared in changed lives, in earnest work for Jesus, and in cheerful giving to His cause. What collections we used to have! At one of our missionary meetings at Castlereagh, Mrs. G---- brought in her missionary gold. When the box was at last opened, sovereign after sovereign rolled out, until we counted forty. At one of our meetings Mr. Lewis and I had to stop the people in their giving. We positively refused to take any more.

-- p.155, from Australian Christian Life from 1788: An Introduction and an Anthology

Conclusion from Five Leading Reformers

Similarly, how much do we look to the pastor (or vicar or elder or whatever we call him) to do everything for us? Do we examine the Scripture for ourselves, weigh up the Sunday sermon in the light of the Bible (as Paul instructed us to do), or simply take it from the minister? Do we develop ourselves spiritually, seeking to grow and mature together actively with the other believers in the Church, through our conversations, our reading, our home groups? Or are we completely passive? We can hardly condemn the clerical-led nature of Roman Catholicism when we ourselves are the spiritual equivalent of couch potatoes! Roman Catholicism itself has changed much, not least in the encouragement of lay activity. All the more reason for professing Protestants to be active likewise.

- p. 187-188 Five Leading Reformers

Five Leading Reformers

I've just finished reading "Five Leading Reformers" by Christopher Catherwood.
I was inspired to read more church history books after reading "Church History in Plain Language" some time ago, and this book seemed to be a good follow-up for me to read. As a Protestant, Reformation period is the most exciting era of church history for me, and I had this book for quite a while.
Now I have finished reading this not-so-thick book (less than 200 pages), I have less admiration for these reformers, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Cranmer, and Knox. Yes, less, not more. They were great men, convicted by great truths of the Gospel, whose works changed the world and their legacy is still felt and experienced in most parts of the world to this day. But the author did well in showing the very human side of these reformers, although I believe he portrayed them only fairly and as accurately as possible. This author also honestly explained the political nature of reformation very well.
Hence, these men, as great as they were, were men, naturally. And so my admiration grew smaller, and my appreciation and reverence towards the God who worked so powerfully through these men, and in fact, through the whole affairs of reformation, both in the trials and victories, has increased.
So, this book had a good effect on me, I'd say.

The author's conclusive paragraphs were a real challenge. It is long-ish to post in one go, so I will be posting up one at a time in coming days.

Here's the first paragraph.

As we have just seen, Protestants often criticise the Catholic 'Cult of Saints'. But how often do we unwittingly do something similar? Many Protestant traditions including Presbyterians of most hues, look back in awe and gratitude to Calvin. There are churches named Lutheran to this day. Other denominations are no different, whether it is the Wesley brothers, Smyth and Helys, Azusa Street or whatever your past hero's name or location might be. We all too easily tend to look at Scripture through the prism of their teaching rather than, as the Reformers did, looking directly to scripture itself, as the doctrine of sola scriptura surely teaches. It would be too ironic if, by quoting, say, Calvin or Luther slavishly, we treat them as being infallible! If we teach that the Pope is not infallible, then neither is any other church leader, however revered. (italics original)
- p. 187 Five Leading Reformers

You can get Five Leading Reformers from BookDepository, Koorong, or Amazon.

The Covenanters

I've always been fascinated by the brave Scots since the day I watched the movie "Braveheart", but as I learned a little bit more about the church history, and as I attend a Presbyterian church, my interest in Scottish church history grew even more.
So when I read about the Covenanters of the 17th century Scotland, I was impressed with their bold faithfulness to Christ.
I am faced with so many moments when I can fit in with everyone else by inaction and simply keeping my mouth shut. But, I want to be more brave when the time calls for it. When so many others keep on sending me a message with such questions like the one in the article, "Why didn't they just go to church?", when not many people see the danger I am trying to warn others about, when people tell me to just fit in and keep quiet by saying "why are you so argumentative?", I want to be faithful and be bold in my actions and words so I may be found faithful to the One who has been faithful all along.

(HT: Gordon Cheng)