You can tell a man by the friends he keeps and likewise you can tell a church by the associations it keeps. So this Reformation Day, let us take a stroll through the halls of Roman Catholicism’s past and present as a simple reminder why true Biblical Christianity will never be at peace with the false religious system and counterfeit Christian organization of Rome.
You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart; you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him. Leviticus 19:17
There is a special obligation upon friends to be helpful to one another in this matter. The laws of friendship require us to discover what things endanger us. . . . Silence or concealment in this case is treachery. He is the most faithful friend, and worthy of most esteem and affection, that deal most plainly with us in reference to exposing our sin. He that is reserved in this case is but a false friend, a mere pretender to love, whereas, indeed, he hates his brother in his heart.
– David Clarkson
1622 – 1686
Your sermon of the week is Soli Deo Gloria: The Supremacy of God in All Things by Brian Borgman. This is part two of a thirteen part series entitled Introduction to the Reformed Faith that Pastor Borgman gave in 1998. DefCon will be posting all thirteen sermons in this series over the next few months. Look for each additional installment every couple weeks. You can find part one, A Tale of Two Gospels, here.
The most spiritual attainment of a Christian in the world, the most spiritual, evangelical mourning and repentance that can be done by a Christian, is a mourning over his unbelief; that the Word of the Lord is not more precious to him; that he cannot trust God’s Word naked without props; that he doubts it so often, when darkness comes on; and that he lets go of this great rock, the faithfulness of God.
– Robert Traill
1642 – 1716
You simply must download and listen to this speech, Death Is Not Dying, by Rachel Barkey. You will be encouraged, you will be moved, you will be challenged, you will need a tissue. I listened to it twice in two days and wanted to share it with the readers of DefCon.
Mrs. Barkey gave this speech in March 2009 to over 600 women after learning that she would be dead in a few short months; she died July 02, 2009. You can read more about her story here.
HT: Atlantic Baptist
From the standpoint of the redeemed, the punishment of the wicked is an act of unspeakable mercy. How dreadful would it be if the present order of things should continue forever, when the children of God are obliged to live in the midst of the children of the Devil. Heaven would at once cease to be Heaven if the ears of the saints still heard the blasphemous, filthy language of the reprobate. What a mercy that in the New Jerusalem “there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination” (Revelation 21:27)!
– A.W. Pink
1886 – 1952
Nate’s back with another powerful, must-see video.
You can also download the audio version of this video by right-clicking here.
_____________________________________________________________________
See Nate’s other warning for the church here.
See also A Test: Are you Loving or Unloving?
Learn to apply Scripture. Take every word as spoken to yourselves. When the Word thunders against sin, think thus: “God means my sins.” When it emphasizes any duty, “God intends me in this.” Many put off Scripture for themselves, as if it only concerned those who lived in the time when it was written; but if you intend to profit by the Word, bring it home to yourselves: a medicine will do no good, unless it is applied.
– Thomas Watson
1620 – 1686
As a follow up to last week’s sermon on Isaiah 53 by J. Randall Easter (see here), I present this Wednesday’s sermon of the week also on Isaiah 53 by Phil Johnson entitled The Atrocity That Pleased God.
Faith is not built by preaching introspectively (constantly challenging people to question whether they have faith); faith is not built by preaching moralistically (which has exactly the opposite effect of focusing attention on the self rather than on Christ, in whom our faith is placed); faith is not built by joining the culture wars and taking potshots at what is wrong with our culture. Faith is built by careful, thorough exposition of the person, character, and work of Christ.
He that says he will be good tomorrow, says he will be wicked today.
– James Janeway
1636 – 1674
Brace yourselves. You will receive more biblical, unadulterated, gospel-preaching truth in the next 12 minutes than what comes from most pulpits in America in a year. You will be moved.
You can download the audio version of this video by right-clicking here.
HT: Regenerated Adam
Any mother who walks into the average American church with six or seven children will tell you, the pagan, secular humanist culture at large is not alone in its negative attitude toward children. Moreover, look at the divorce rates among Christians compared to those of non-Christians, and you will see that our attitudes about and commitment to marriage is anything but exemplary.
– Voddie Baucham
The following is an article by James Swan refuting an attempted defense of Roman Catholicism’s great heresy: The Immaculate Conception. I found the timing of this to be highly apropos in light of a continued discussion that is taking place on this very subject on the comment thread from this post.
How To Prove The Immaculate Conception Without Biblical Proof
10/04/2009 – James Swan
The constant dilemma of the Roman Catholic apologist is to insert doctrines into the Bible that aren’t there to begin with. Their argumentation of meandering logic seeks to demonstrate: a) The Bible doesn’t contradict the doctrine being inserted; b)There are indirect Bible passages that if interpreted by first granting the validity of the extra-biblical doctrine, actually support the extra biblical doctrine. Catholic apologist John Martignoni’s most recent newsletter is a perfect example. He presents “Challenge/Response/Strategy” in defending Mary’s immaculate conception. This argumentation is for his upcoming book on basic Roman Catholic apologetics.
In Martignoni’s argumentation, the immaculate conception must first be brought to the biblical text. That is, by a plain reading of the Bible, one would not read from Genesis to Revelation and conclude Mary was born sinless and remained free of sin her entire life. Martignoni’s apologetic then is to prove the immaculate conception is not disproved by anything the Bible states, and that certain texts can be utilized as indirect proofs. I outlined Martignoni’s hypothetical challenges and his responses in the order he presented them. My counter responses are in red.
Argument 1: The Bible doesn’t use the words immaculate conception. Therefore it is an unbiblical concept.
Martignoni’s Response: The words Trinity and Incarnation are not found in the Bible either.
Swan’s Counter: I know of no serious Protestant apologist that actually uses such an argument. The question is not whether the phrase is found in the Bible, but are there specific direct passages that substantiate such a concept? To substantiate such a concept as a clear teaching of scripture one needs direct passages, not a few vague inference passages.
Argument 2: Trinity and Incarnation are concepts supported by the Bible, the immaculate conception has no such support.
Martignoni’s response: There is no passage in Scripture which directly states that Mary was not conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived.
Swan’s counter: Aside from the fact this response doesn’t follow from the argument, this type of argument can [be] applied to many individuals within the Bible. The Bible doesn’t say Priscilla was conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived, yet we don’t assume she was. A lack of evidence does not bolster or further an argument.
Argument 3: Romans 3:9-12 and 3:22-23 says all are under the power of sin and that all have sinned, therefore Mary sinned.
Martignoni’s response (four points):
A. Such an argument does not address Mary being immaculately conceived, it addresses whether or not she was sinless her entire life, which is a different question.
Swan’s Counter: Under the heading of “The Immaculate Conception,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long” (CCC 493), so it is not a different question.
B. There is no passage in Scripture which directly states that Mary was not conceived without original sin, or that she was not immaculately conceived.
Swan’s Counter: Luke 1:35 positively says Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit. There is no such verse about Mary’s conception. There is no verse that states Mary must be sinless in order to bear the Son of God. Martignoni offers no similar positive evidence that would separate her from the rest of humanity described in Romans 3.
C. Some Protestants believe things not found in the Bible. Catholics likewise should be allowed to believe things not directly stated in the Bible. Example: The Bible nowhere says contraception is okay, yet most protestants believe it is.
Swan’s Counter: Martignoni’s argument would not work against Protestants who deny both the immaculate conception and contraception. To prove some Protestants may believe something not found in the Bible does nothing more than prove an inconsistency. To prove such offers no positive support for an extra-biblical belief in the immaculate conception.
D. Some Scripture passages indirectly support the Immaculate Conception, like Genesis 3:14-15. Mary is the woman described. Enmity exists between Satan and the woman. Martignoni says, “If you have sin in you, can you say that there is enmity between you and Satan?” Only a sinless being can be at enmity with Satan. Therefore Mary was not conceived in sin, and did not commit personal sin.
Swan’s counter: This is Martignoni’s only attempt to present positive argumentation. He candidly admits his Biblical proof is indirect. The argument has an unproven assumption: only a sinless person can be an enemy of Satan, at war with Satan. But, there has always been enmity between believers and Satan. One does not have to be sinless to be at war with Satan. Why would Paul exhort the Ephesians to put on the full armor of God “so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes“? Wouldn’t he first clarify that in order to put on the armor, one must be entirely sinless? Similarly, why would Peter exhort Christians to resist the Devil (1 Peter 5:8), or James to resist the devil (James 4:7)? Here we have direct proof that all Christians are enemies of Satan, at war with Satan. John warns us that “if we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves.” Christians are sinners, and they are at war with Satan. Nothing could be clearer.
Martignoni states that he was limited with the amount of time he had to put into this argumentation. Then again, he states this argumentation is for a book (as if the world needs yet another book repeating arguments already put forth by other writers). If he’s going to continue with a similar line of reasoning, perhaps he should back up a bit and explain his proofs are not proofs, but inferences. He claims to be presenting “biblical, historical, and logical perspectives” as to the immaculate conception. His reasoning though amounts to inferences and leaps of logic read into the text.
HT: Isaiah
Rome never changes. Rome will never admit that she has made mistakes. She burned our English Reformers 300 years ago. She tried hard to stamp out by violence the Protestantism which she could not prevent spreading by arguments. If Rome had only the power, I am not sure that she would not attempt to play the whole game over again.
– J.C. Ryle
1816 – 1900
All the while you delay, God is more provoked, the wicked one [Satan] more encouraged, your heart more hardened, your debts more increased, your soul more endangered, and all the difficulties of conversion daily more and more multiplied upon you, having a day more to repent of, and a day less to repent in.
– George Swinnock
1627 – 1673
This short video is from Reidhead’s sermon Ten Shekles and a Shirt and can be listened to in its entirety on this previous post.
Here’s a quote from the sermon not found in the video:
If I had my way, I would declare a moratorium on public preaching of “the plan of salvation” in America for one to two years. Then I would call on everyone who has use of the airways and the pulpits to preach the holiness of God, the righteousness of God and the law of God, until sinners would cry out, “What must we do to be saved?” Then I would take them off in a corner and whisper the gospel to them. Such drastic action is needed because we have gospel-hardened a generation of sinners by telling them how to be saved before they have any understanding why they need to be saved.
The overwhelming majority of today’s evangelical sophisticates would clearly prefer it if no one ever criticized evangelical Golden Calves. Rampant error doesn’t unsettle them in the least. They are quite happy to live with it and even actively make peace with it.
But let someone dare to voice an objection to a troubling doctrine in the latest best-seller making the rounds on campus—even a denial of the Trinity or some other soul-destroying soteriological or Christological novelty—and the very people who profess to hate criticism (and who work so hard to seem agreeable in their dealings with with the unorthodox) will heap the nastiest kinds of vituperation on the soul of the one who has dared to criticize unorthodoxy and thereby threaten the “unity” evangelicals think their timid silence has won them.
– Phil Johnson
“When they can get rid of me, the Devil will also go.”
Joseph Smith (First false prophet of the Mormon organization)
History of the Church, Volume 6, Page 409
“The Christian God is the Mormon’s Devil.”
Brigham Young (Second false prophet of the Mormon organization)
Journal of Discourses,Volume 5 Page 331
Christ Alone Wyoming 