tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-294108502024-03-08T04:54:57.376-05:00The Wild Boar News"There is a wild boar in the vineyard of the Lord..."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-52867032896281462732008-12-10T17:02:00.000-05:002009-01-27T17:09:11.349-05:00Xmas or Christ-mass?<p>Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program <i>The Wild Boar News Podcast</i> from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.</p> <p>There are many articles and papers written to show that Christmas, and other holidays like Easter, are thoroughly unbiblical, and are intended to sway the Christian community away from practicing such “man-made holy-days.” No doubt the authors of such papers have the best interest of the Christian Church in mind, and are not simply jumping upon the bandwagon of “reformed thought” in order to add another notch to their theological belt. However, when these articles begin to substantiate the claim that Christians should have nothing to do with the holiday of Christmas, the weightiest arguments they bring forth are two fold: 1) The appeal to the pagan roots of idolatry, and 2) the history and witness of the Christian Church. </p> <p>First, writers appeal to the pagan roots of the holiday as a means to deter Christians from practicing such abominable vestiges even though the a 21st century Christmas is not blatantly practicing the same rites as the Babylonians or druids of old once did. For instance, the Christmas tree is set up in some corner of the living room, decorated and lighted, and gifts abound and grow under the tree as December 25th draws near. The appeal is then made to Jeremiah 10:3-4 where idolatry is condemned. It says, “For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple.” Here we see idolatry based in the practice of cutting down, setting up, and decorating a tree. Or they quote Jeremiah 2:20, “For of old I have broken your yoke and burst your bonds; And you said, "I will not transgress,' When on every high hill and under every green tree You lay down, playing the harlot.” Here the evergreen tree was used to promote false religion and idolatry. God was angered at the Israelites for their religious syncretism and their participation in these practices. Idolatry is certainly condemned by God and no Christian should ever be disobeying and transgressing the first table of the Law of God (commandments 1-4) by profaning the worship of God with idols. </p> <p>The second appeal is made to the history of the church and its practices. Surely this is an important note to make, and that petition to such testimony is warranted. We could cite the reformers such as Luther and Calvin, the pastors of Geneva city-state, the Waldensen Confession, the Puritan Divines such as Edmund Calamy, Samuel Rutherford, James Durham, Increase Mather, Thomas Vincent, John Owen, Andrew Clarkson, Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, James Fisher, John Willison, John Brown, Robert Shaw (and many more), The Westminster Confession, the Directory of Publick worship, The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and their confession, and various other creeds and confessions. These diligent writers will make it known that the church did not practice this holiday until sometime after the 4th century, and show varied proofs that most opposed the practice altogether, condemning it out rightly. Christ-mass following the Roman Catholic Practice is anti-biblical. Here we see the siege to discourage the practice and participation of Christmas is usually based on these 2 points. I would agree.</p> <p>Before I give my own view, I would like to address the two avenues above which are the usual lines of reasoning in dissuading Christians from partaking in the Christmas holiday. </p> <p>The first argument is certainly important. Christians are certainly never to participate in idolatrous worship. However, the case against Christmas on this point is not that Christians are out rightly bowing down to a tree and worshipping it, or profaning Christ by setting the Yule log on the fire, or desecrating the glory of God by exchanging gifts with one another. I have never met a Christian who blatantly setup a green tree in their home to practice idolatry. The argument presented in the first point above is not directed by those writers against people who setup idols in their home and bow down to them after supper for family devotions. Rather, the argument stems from the pagan practices which lie behind what Christians do with those Christmas trees, Yule logs, wreaths, etc. in days of old. Scripture everywhere condemns idolatry, but the argument that because something has pagan roots is no argument against Christmas. Why is this? Some may believe I am going to appeal to Romans 14 and the Christian’s liberty with holy days as the argument against this. But that passage does not address the situation rightly, and, as a matter of fact condemns such days. Rather, I appeal to 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. It asserts the following: </p> <p>Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him. 4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 9But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble. </p> <p>Did Paul have any problem eating meat sacrificed to idols? Not at all. Paul ate the meat. Even though the meat had pagan origins, he still ate it. Even though the cow or bull was offered as a sacrifice for devils, slain and drained of its blood, cut up and used in the ceremony, Paul still had no problem eating it. Paul’s determent to eat meat sacrificed to idols was the consideration of a weaker brother in front of them knowing where it came from. </p> <p>Christ-mass (yes I spelled it correctly) cannot be condemned because it has pagan origins. Christmas, as pagan as it might be, and as many pagan ideologies it may possess, cannot be condemned because 1000 years ago or 500 years ago or 5 days ago someone bowed down to the tree and committed idolatry with it. People hang picture frames through their home to display photos, made from wood – should that deter them since they knew it was once a tree, and someone 500 years ago worshipped trees? What about planting an evergreen tree in your yard? The Christian is not bound by such instances. </p> <p>Secondly, the appeal to men may be helpful, but the opinions of men, no matter how renown they may be, should never be the basis of setting the Christian's conscience. Scripture should. The Christian conscience should be captive by the Word of God alone. However, Christians should always weigh and consider the prominent and distinct men of the church (the gifts of Christ to His chosen people) in difficult areas of theology and doctrine. It is certainly helpful and edifying to the soul to see what the councils, creeds, puritans and magisterial reformers thought. In the case at hand, most of church history is opposed to the involvement of the Christian in the celebration of Christ-mass. Even the city-state of Geneva in 1546 stated they would reprimand anyone who observed the day, believing it was a retreat to Romanism – the heretical monster they were breaking away from. (“Those who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless they remain obstinately rebellious.” - Register of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1546)). However, the break from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation is wholly another point to speak about in comparison to the Christmas celebration many desire to invoke today without any reference to the Catholic Church. I am unaware that Calvin ever wrote against Rudolph’s shiny red nose. </p> <p>At this point you may wondering what my position is. It was needful to state the former arguments and positions before going onto what I believe is the crux of the argument against Christmas and other like “holy-days.” Knowing that one cannot utilize pagan origins, nor the opinions of men (perse), as arguments against the practice of Christmas, what biblical grounds would I have against it? </p> <p>Take Christ out of Christ-mass and there you have it. If Christ was taken out of the picture altogether, XMAS would be acceptable to the Christian. Like Father’s day or Mother’s Day, holidays to exchange gifts and have parties together with family and friends is quite acceptable. The contention that arises is when one places Christ within the Christmass scheme to use it as a day to commemorate and remember His birth, that it becomes a direct violation of the Regulative Principle of worship. Upon the violation of this principle of worship lies the ground by which every Christian should see Christmass as abominable. It is true that extreme debt, excess financial strain, Christmas party debauchery, a-whoring after material wealth, unbridled children demanding certain gifts and throwing tempter tantrums when they are refused them, and the like, also are added into the bag of those things which Christians should oppose during the “jolly season.” However, it is upon the principle of God’s command in worship that Christmas becomes detestable. </p> <p>I'm all for Frosty the Snowman, Jack Frost, winter wonderlands, chestnuts roasting on an open fire, exchanging presents, eating candy canes, enjoying really good egg-nog, stuffing stocking, watching "Elf" with Will Ferrel, or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer with that classic sung by Burl Ives, as well as all the other holiday festivities. Why? Well, they have nothing to do with Jesus Christ and the birth story, or the incarnation. They do not violate, in any way, the Regulative Principle. They are fictional characters.</p> <p>If you are not familiar with the Regulative Principle, there are a host of articles on A Puritan’s Mind explaining it. Briefly, the Regulative Principle teaches that worship is construed only by the direct commands of God in His Word. You, friend, don’t have the right to set up a day of worship about Jesus Christ that God has not set up. God chose the Lord’s Day. There is nothing about Christ-mass in Scripture. To allow into worship what is not expressly commanded in the Bible, whether that is for a day or for the regular Sunday service, is false worship. It is a worship fabricated by men, and this violates the principles of worship that God has commanded. For instance, if men say that drama or mime is acceptable in worship because God has not expressly commanded that it not be done, they are violating the Regulative Principle. God expresses states what He does command and does not need to expressly forbid what He does not. </p> <p>Scriptural examples abound for this principle abound, and you can go and study the longer article version of this podcast under Christmas on the What’s New Page in order to read it and ponder it slowly. </p> <p>The principle is ratified in passages such as Deuteronomy 4:1-2 which says, “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Jesus said, “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:8-9)” When men introduce their own ideas into worship, they have violated the Regulative Principle that Christ has given. Paul calls this “will-worship” in Colossians 2:23 which states, “These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, [translated literally “will-worship”] false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” Here we see that self-imposed religion, or the worship of one’s own will, violates the principles God has expressly set.</p> <p>Secondly, we must define whether or not Christmass actually falls under the category of worship. Is setting aside a certain day, once a year to honor Christ’s birth, a violation of the Regulative Principle and worship? Apart from asking this question, the Christian should be the first to realize that giving gifts, Santa Claus, Christmas Trees, Yule Logs and the like, have absolutely nothing to do with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The closest in any of these is the giving of gifts, but we do not give gifts to Christ as the Magi did (which was for a specific purpose) but rather, we give them to one another. How is this honoring to Christ? I have yet found anyone who can justify any of these things in a lawful connection to Christ and His Word. It just does not exist. Instead, they are following, blindly, the Roman Catholic institution of the Christ-mass. Father’s, check your church history before making Christmas day to teach your children about Christ’s birth, or disregard it if you are trying to be more Roman Catholic. </p> <p>If one were to take one day a month to meditate on the incarnation in their private devotions, there would be no contention. It is the formalizing of a specific day to honor Christ which is the problem. Public or private worship is still to be regulated by God’s Word and not the imaginations of men’s minds. </p> <p>I’ve received a number of letters, much like St. Nick, about Christ-mas. OK, they were really emails, not letters. But in today's technologically savvy world, it’s much the same thing. No, no, these are not about what people would like for Christ-mas in terms of presents, but they are wondering whether they ought to celebrate Christ-mas at all at HOME apart from the church, or create some special time at HOME apart from anything the church fails to do or not do during "advent" and Christ-mas time. In thinking about how many Christians deal with "Santa Claus" and all that Xmas represents at HOME, there are some considerations to take into account that way heavily on this idea of "the holiday of Christ-mas." Christians must continually think about how ideas that are formulated in our society affect the way culture works in and out of the church, and in and out of the home. The best case scenario is that a godly church does not mimic the world or its culture, but rather arrests that culture with the Gospel. In the instance of holidays and special days that may be part of the American Culture, or any culture for that matter, still, the Gospel should arrest those ideologies and submit them to a godly action.</p> <p>One must remember how things usually work out - what the church teaches usually filters into the homes of Christians . (Godly teaching should affect the church in a godly way, and unbiblical teaching or error hinders the work of the church). For example, if corporate worship includes something that violates the Regulative Principle of Worship, Christians that have thought through what God requires of His people in church should never teach their children, or anyone else in their family, that error. Parents must help their families "screen" things like that, even if it is an error propagated by a godly pastor. However, if one has a church that teaches that Christmas is not OK for corporate worship, then there should be no problem whatsoever developing some family "traditions" during the holiday season that surround things at HOME, and not church, on Christ's incarnation. Those traditions, though, ought never to include "paganistic ideas" or that Christians should "recapture" those paganistic ideas for the sake of family fun. For example, the Christmas tree, in this instance, is a pagan religious idea (simply put) that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with Christ's birth. Christians should not include Christ-mas trees in their homes if they are going to incorporate them into some religiously significant event. But teaching children, or family members about Christ's birth during the month of December is also not prohibited by the Scriptures in any way. One simply must be careful not to equate the "worldly ideas" or "paganistic ideas" of Christ-mas with Jesus Christ. He simply does not belong there. The two do not mix. One could, for argument's sake, teach their family about the birth of Jesus Christ at ANY time of the year. (And they should!)</p> <p>Some people believe Xmas trees, mistletoe, Santa, Rudolph, the Bumble and Frosty the Snowman are paganistic idols. They believe that taking those things out of Xmas and turning things to Christ, or introducing foreign ideas that have no place in the Christology of Jesus Christ to their family at "Christmas", is OK. It is really the reverse. Santa is as much an "idol" as Nemo was in Finding Nemo, or "Jiminy Cricket" was in Peter Pan. If one has a problem with Santa, or his elves, then one must accordingly have a problem with any other fictional character from Johnny Tremain to the legends behind Davy Crocket, Superman, or Kit Kittredge. However, if parents are using Santa and his gifts to lie to their children, that is a very different matter. It is sinful against both their children and Jesus Christ to lie. Parents should not lie to their children at any time; especially about a fat man in a red suit that rewards children based on works. </p> <p>If someone wants to create some religiously significant time with their family as it is dictated in the Bible, there is no sin there. If, for example, a father wants to use the month of July each year to teach his family a four week teaching on the cross of Christ, he should do it. It could become a family tradition to do so. If a mother wanted to teach her children about the Holy Spirit in November, then by all means, she should do so. Christians, however, should be cautious to "equate" what is done at home with what the church will wrongly give a "stamp of approval" for during the season of "Christ-mas". In other words, "Jesus is the reason for the Season" is just a load of bunk. Jesus Christ is not only Lord of the season, but He is Lord of every day and every minute of every day, and, in fact, upholds everything in every moment and is the One in whom "we live and move and have our being" every day of the year. His incarnation extends to every moment of every time in the monumental significance of human and creative redemption. The incarnation is not just for December 25th, July 8th or March 12th, dates that have absolutely no religious significance whatsoever, unless they fall on the Lord's Day and are, in fact, observed as the Lord's Day. Christians must be careful about how they use something lawful and good at a time when it can be misconstrued. The incarnation is lawful, good and theologically necessary for salvation. But December may be a "cliché" month to visit that topic. One may measure their bondage to that cliché by their ability or non-ability to use ANOTHER month to teach their family about the incarnation. Reader, could you celebrate the meanings that you hold in Christ-mas in, say, August, or February? If not, you may be more bound to the secularization of Romanism than you may be willing to believe. </p> <p>This writer continues to vote for taking Christ out of XMAS so there is no confusion on the issue, and instead teaches about the incarnation and birth of Christ ALL YEAR ROUND. In that way, every "theological" base is covered, and one may still be able to enjoy "Elf" on TV during December, a candy cane or two, and a nice honey baked ham during the secular holiday of Christ-mas - a fun time if one uses it lawfully.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-14275584279829972662008-10-12T15:26:00.000-04:002008-10-12T15:29:40.776-04:00Exit Interview – Why a Reformed Pastor is Leaving the MinistryGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />I spoke to a Reformed Pastor this past week, and he is in a dilemma. He is in a financial crisis. No, the crisis does not run around the current economical trends of wall street and main street and the current bailout bill that the government is instituting to inject life into the financial sector. Rather, this pastor’s financial crisis surrounds being a Reformed minister and supporting his family as a Reformed minister.<br /><br />Now, I am not referring to mainline denominational lines where pastors will refer to themselves as Reformed because they have a copy of the Westminster Confession on their bookshelf, or even that a denomination may say they hold to the Westminster Confession in their book of church order while at the same time having a hoopla worship service adorned with everything but the kitchen sink. No, I am referring to a truly Reformed Pastor who desires to preach the truth, but cannot afford to preach the truth in the midst of a postmodern age that is more interested in hoopla than the truth.<br /><br />This pastor has gone to bible college AND seminary, having more than the typical MDiv degree that most current Presbyterian pastors have. This brother is a step up. If he were a house, and a price value was placed on him as a house with special improvements, he would be worth more and have more equity than the general houses of the neighborhood.<br /><br />This pastor is an exceptionally good preacher, has a wonderful heart for ministry, loves the truth, and loves the God of truth. His desire is to see people transformed by the Word of God. His problem is that his church has 12 people on a regular Sunday. With his own family, and possibly a visitor, his maxes out at about 17-20.<br /><br />Can a minister, worthy of his wages as Christ states, live on the 3% average tithing of 3 other families? The answer to that is a resounding no. So what does he do? He goes out to find another job and becomes a tentmaker. In that other job his interests are now divided and it begins to take a toll on his health and his family. He is now working full time, and at the same time holding ALL the responsibilities of a pastor. The people still need counseling. He still needs to prepare sermons, and the order of worship each week. But even now, in the midst of his second job, the economy is starting to affect that as well. Now what does he do?<br /><br />Well, he has to reinvent himself again. He has to think, at 49 years old, of going to school and learning a new trade that will benefit him and help support his family. Remember, he has 7 years of school and two degrees, but they are useless degrees in our day to provide for his family.<br /><br />At this point his zeal for preaching is displaced for fear of losing his house, feeding his children, and caring for his family. The ideal he once had for the ministry has become shattered.<br /><br />The emergent church is winning. This pastor cannot compete with the churches who cater to the flesh. People are far more interested in seeing the bouncing ball during a hoopla service bounce across the screen while they hold a parade in their sanctuary, than they are hearing a sermon about sin and salvation. What does a Reformed Pastor do? There is, for lack of a better phrase, no money in reformed theology.<br /><br />In talking with this pastor, he conveyed that unless he is willing to sell out and compromise on 70% percent of his ministry, he will never have a church that would be able to support his family. He would never have a church bigger than 12. He would never have a church that competes with 7 other emergent churches that have gone the way of Balaam across his small town and in his area. How can he compete with a church that has Starbucks in the foyer?<br /><br />This pastor will leave the ministry. Then where does he go? There is no church in his area for hundreds of miles where he could attend in good faith, or the few others in his area that attend his church services. There is no place to go for him. So in leaving the ministry by necessity, he leaves the church. In leaving the church, who knows what will spiritually happen to his family and his own walk with Christ.<br /><br />For the Reformed pastor, this is not a happy story, or an unfamiliar one. Reformed theology may be true, and the Gospel may be housed inside TULIP and Calvinism, it may be given to the saints by Christ Himself through His providential oversight of HIS pastors, but it is in contest with mega churches and their ministries who are willing to compromise for the sake of having MORE ministries and willing to turn their churches into mini malls. The entertainment factor is winning out over the truth.<br /><br />That tells us two things – 1) people are willing to peddle the word of God for profit, and 2) people are willing to let them. The flesh would be far more content with a Java Chip Frappacino before the band starts, than hearing a sermon on the crucified Savior and the mortification of the flesh in obedience to His commandments.<br /><br />Reformed Theology will never lose out to the emergent church and its non-theology since Christ said that the gates of hell will never prevail against the truth. Those churches, their pastors and their members will be sorely judged for their wickedness and contempt for the truth. But the emergent church will cause Reformed Churches to close and press true pastors to find new employment.<br /><br />Listener beware. If your pastor is more interested in a bouncing ball during the Sunday morning sermonette, or they constitute a new committee for restructuring the foyer to serve coffee, then the devil is visiting your church and may steal the truth away from you for the sake of modernity without you being the wiser. In our age there is no more scary an idea than the truth being given up for modern conveniences and entertainment.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-80820381155747164182008-06-09T21:35:00.000-04:002008-06-09T21:37:43.411-04:00Glamorizing the MinistryGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />I’ve run across too many preachers who desire to preach because they believe that their calling is based on affinity more than the true calling of the ministry. What do I mean? Affinity is defined as “a natural attraction or feeling of kinship.” Sticking particularly with those not seeking to preach the Word of God for profit as most TV preachers do, but rather who have an affinity to Reformed Theology and desire others to know its truths, such preachers often solidify their affinity for the ministry with theological kinship.<br /><br />Think about the pastor of your local church. When they were not pastors what determined their calling? How did they share their calling? What definable traits deemed their calling genuine? What criteria did the elders of your church place upon that man as he solidified his ministerial position with your church body?<br /><br />There is a great portion of one’s pastoral calling that frequently is tied to the glamorization of the ministry due to their affinity with theological giants of the past. When “wanna be” pastors find Reformation Theology, and the richness of those further definable points of interest in Post Reformation Theological views, there is an insatiable need to share those truths which further develops into an affinity with those giants of old to “be like them.”<br /><br />At that point, ministry changes. Pastoral ministry should not be set upon the affinity with theological giants of the past. Ministry is not about sitting in one’s study perusing over tomes of Puritan literature in order to bring about a Sunday sermon that shakes the rooftops as puritan experimental preaching did 400 years ago. It is not about locking one’s self behind closed doors to study all day long. It is not based on the glamorization of Reformation history brought back to life by a pastor’s false affinity.<br /><br />Scholarship behind closed doors is one thing. But that is not ministry. It is certainly not pastoral ministry. It could be that one may be called to be scholarly and to lock their doors in order to study for some evangelical end.<br /><br />To speak more directly, pastoral ministry is about being called of God to sacrifice your life for the good of the sheep that God sends you to for His glory. Think of God’s pastors of old. Noah watched the destruction of the human race and then continued to preach to 7 people for years and years. His church was his household. What about Moses who left Pharaoh’s court to be with the persecuted brethren? The prophets? Well, Isaiah’s life was no picnic. Jeremiah – the weeping prophet? Jonah, who ran from God? Amos, whose ministry lasted all but 30 minutes, or the time it took to stand up and read Amos aloud? John the Baptist got his head cut off. Even God’s own Son, Jesus Christ was sent to die. His apostles longed to be in heaven, but as Paul said, he would rather stay for it is better for the church that he does. Suffering, persecution and sacrifice. Pastoral ministry is not glamorous. It is not about memorizing the sermons of the Reformers, or being “Reformed”. Such a glamorization will cause you to fall from that lofty height, that fantasy place, very quickly.<br /><br />People often find fantastical outlets to remedy their hum-drum lives. Movies, games, drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, fantasy of all kinds. But in the highest calling a man may be called to, to pastor the flock of God, the foundation of that calling can never be the fantasy of glamorizing the ministry. It makes the up and coming minister no better than drug addict who will crash after a few hard years, or less, of real life ministry. The drug wears off quickly. The glamour disappears, and he finds himself standing in the midst of people with real needs and real life pains and he will not know what to do because he thought ministry was simply about preaching puritanical sermons and getting that Sunday afternoon pat on the back from his parishioners. Remember that even the great men of history saw through such a façade. Jonathan Edwards was ejected from his church, and he was one of the greatest puritan affiniates ever.<br /><br />That is why James is so hard on those who want to be teachers. There is a great difference between enjoying Reformational theology and being called of God, truly to lead His people.<br />James 3:1, “Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.”<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind –for more on the Gospel, Reformed and Puritan Theology, and more of the Wild Boar, visit http://www.apuritansmind.com.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-1016898922074092282008-03-16T23:51:00.000-04:002008-03-19T23:53:02.786-04:00Easter - The Devil's HolidayGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />What do we find when entering into Roman Catholicism’s “borrowing” of paganism? We find their continued alliance with breaking the regulative principle, and the replacement of true worship, with worshipping that which is unholy. They institute unscriptural burdens such as Lent, fast days, sacred rites that control their kingdom with superstitions and false religion guised in the cloak of “authority” and hide the truth from people to damn them for all eternity. One such deception is their introduction of the “Christian festival of Easter.” Look around and you will see the world-wide acceptance of the chocolate bunny and hardboiled egg. It is harmless, right? <br /><br />What does one find when looking at the celebration of Easter? The term “Easter” is certainly not Christian, and is of Chalcedonian origin. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people at Nineveh, was evidently identical with that now in common use today. That name, as found by Layard on the Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar – the devil or Satan. Worship of the devil in this way was introduced to the English people through the Druids who worshipped the devil through nature. <br /><br />Take a moment and note that Romanism or Druidism for that matter, would not openly say “they are worshipping the devil.” Of course they would deny it. However, the Scripture is exceedingly clear that any doctrine not brought to men through the Triune Godhead, and the Savior Jesus Christ, is a doctrine of demons and therefore, a worshipping of the devil. This certainly applies not only to the contemporary church when it introduces destructive heresies, or twists Paul’s words to their own destruction, as Peters states, but also applies to false religious ideas that pull people away from the one true Savior and only God Jesus Christ. One cannot introduce false religion without partaking of demonic influences and devil worship in that light.<br />As a result of Druidic worship, and influences that have penetrated into Romanism, contemporary Christendom of almost every flavor still has those influences lingering today in their worship, and their Sunday morning bulletins around the time of Easter. The Druids would worship in lighting a fire in the center circle and each worshipper putting in a “bit of oat-cake in a shepherd's bonnet; they all sit down, and draw blindfold a piece from the bonnet. One piece has been previously blackened, and whoever gets that piece has to jump through the fire in the centre of the circle, and pay a forfeit. This is, in fact, a part of the ancient worship of Baal, and the person on whom the lot fell was previously burnt as a sacrifice.” Scripture deems this “walking through the fire” or “fire sacrifice.” God condemns the practice of making children walk through the fire in Leviticus 18:21, “You shall not give any of your children to offer them to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.” <br /><br />Easter, then, traces back through Astarte was also worshipped in ancient times, and that from the name Astarte, whose name in Nineveh was Ishtar, the religious workings during the month of March and April, as now practiced in most of Christendom, are called by the name of Easter. In ancient times the pagans called this time of the year Easter-monath.<br /><br />Even Socrates, the ancient philosopher, describes the different ways in which Easter was observed in different countries in his time during the fifth century. He states, “Thus much already laid down may seem a sufficient treatise to prove that the celebration of the feast of Easter began everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either of Christ or any Apostle." (Hist. Ecclesiast.) Even Socrates, the pagan philosopher knew Easter was not a Christian doctrine.<br /><br />Where did people begin worshipping “gods” on Easter? Hislop explains, “The forty days' of fasting during the Romanist Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, who have inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. It was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, where he gives account of Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox...began a solemn fast of forty days in honor of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt which was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god. At the same time, the rape of Proserpine seems to have been commemorated, and in a similar manner; for Julius Firmicus informs us that, for "forty nights" the "wailing for Proserpine" continued; and from Arnobius we learn that the fast which the Pagans observed, called "Castus" or the "sacred" fast, was, by the Christians in his time, believed to have been primarily in imitation of the long fast of Ceres, when for many days she determinedly refused to eat on account of her "excess of sorrow," that is, on account of the loss of her daughter Proserpine, when carried away by Pluto, the god of hell. As the stories of Bacchus, or Adonis and Proserpine, though originally distinct, were made to join on and fit in to one another, so that Bacchus was called Liber, and his wife Ariadne, Libera (which was one of the names of Proserpine), it is highly probable that the forty days' fast of Lent was made in later times to have reference to both. Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June, therefore called the "month of Tammuz"; in Egypt, about the middle of May, and in Britain, sometime in April. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skilful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity--now far sunk in idolatry--in this as in so many other things, to shake hands. The instrument in accomplishing this amalgamation was the abbot Dionysius the Little, to whom also we owe it, as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from the true time. Whether this was done through ignorance or design may be matter of question; but there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years later than the truth. This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was attended with momentous consequences. It brought into the Church the grossest corruption and the rankest superstition in connection with the abstinence of Lent. Let anyone only read the atrocities that were commemorated during the "sacred fast" or Pagan Lent, as described by Arnobius and Clemens Alexandrinus, and surely he must blush for the Christianity of those who, with the full knowledge of all these abominations, "went down to Egypt for help" to stir up the languid devotion of the degenerate Church, and who could find no more excellent way to "revive" it, than by borrowing from so polluted a source; the absurdities and abominations connected with which the early Christian writers had held up to scorn. That Christians should ever think of introducing the Pagan abstinence of Lent was a sign of evil; it showed how low they had sunk, and it was also a cause of evil; it inevitably led to deeper degradation. Originally, even in Rome, Lent, with the preceding revelries of the Carnival, was entirely unknown; and even when fasting before the Christian Pasch was held to be necessary, it was by slow steps that, in this respect, it came to conform with the ritual of Paganism. What may have been the period of fasting in the Roman Church before sitting of the Nicene Council does not very clearly appear, but for a considerable period after that Council, we have distinct evidence that it did not exceed three weeks.” <br /><br />So we have the history of “Easter” and its popular observances today confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character, such as the hot-crossed buns that are so tasty.<br /><br />The hot cross buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites just as they do now. The "buns" were used in the worship of the queen of heaven, the goddess Easter, as early as the days of Cecrops, the founder of Athens--that is, 1500 years before the Christian era. Jeremiah 7:18 states, “The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.” Jeremiah uses the word "bun" which is where the concept was derived. The Hebrew word was pronounced Khavan, which in Greek became sometimes Kapan-os. The Hebrew shows how Khvan, pronounced as one syllable, would pass into the Latin panis, "bread," and the second how, in like manner, Khvon would become Bon or Bun. The hot cross buns are not now offered, but eaten, on the festival of Astarte; but this leaves no doubt as to where the original idea came from.<br /><br />What about the Ishtar Eggs? Where do we get bunnies and eggs in baskets and egg hunts during a Christian holy-day? The origin of the Paschal eggs is just as pagan. The ancient Druids bore an egg, as the sacred emblem of their order. Hislop says, “In the Dionysiaca, or mysteries of Bacchus, as celebrated in Athens, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the consecration of an egg. The Hindo fables celebrate their mundane egg as of a golden color. The people of Japan make their sacred egg to have been brazen. In China, at this hour, dyed or painted eggs are used on sacred festivals, even as in this country. In ancient times eggs were used in the religious rites of the Egyptians and the Greeks, and were hung up for mystic purposes in their temples. From Egypt these sacred eggs can be distinctly traced to the banks of the Euphrates. The classic poets are full of the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians.” Hyginus, the poet states, “An egg of wondrous size is said to have fallen from heaven into the river Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank, where the doves having settled upon it, and hatched it, out came Venus, who afterwards was called the Syrian Goddess"--that is, Astarte, or Easter. So the Easter Egg became one of the symbols of Astarte, and its occult meaning had reference to the ark during the time of the flood, in which the whole human race were shut up, as the chick is enclosed in the egg before it is hatched. <br />The egg, then, became used as a symbol for the whole world as Noah and his family, after the destruction was the “whole world” floating on the waters of the flood. Hislop states, “The coming of the egg from heaven evidently refers to the preparation of the ark by express appointment of God; and the same thing seems clearly implied in the Egyptian story of the mundane egg which was said to have come out of the mouth of the great god. The doves resting on the egg need no explanation. This, then, was the meaning of the mystic egg in one aspect. As, however, everything that was good or beneficial to mankind was represented in the Chaldean mysteries, as in some way connected with the Babylonian goddess, so the greatest blessing to the human race, which the ark contained in its bosom, was held to be Astarte, who was the great civiliser and benefactor of the world. Though the deified queen, whom Astarte represented, had no actual existence till some centuries after the flood, yet through the doctrine of metempsychosis, which was firmly established in Babylon, it was easy for her worshippers to be made to believe that, in a previous incarnation, she had lived in the Antediluvian world, and passed in safety through the waters of the flood. Now the Romish Church adopted this mystic egg of Astarte, and consecrated it as a symbol of Christ's resurrection. A form of prayer was even appointed to be used in connection with it, Pope Paul V teaching his superstitious votaries thus to pray at Easter this specific prayer, “Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, this thy creature of eggs, that it may become a wholesome sustenance unto thy servants, eating it in remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ…” (Scottish Guardian, April, 1844).<br /><br />That Semiramis, under the name of Astarte, was worshipped not only as an incarnation of the Spirit of God, but as the mother of mankind, we have very clear and satisfactory evidence. There is no doubt that "the Syrian goddess" was Astarte (LAYARD'S Nineveh and its Remains). Now, the Assyrian goddess, or Astarte, is akin to simply worshipping the devil. Astarte is not Jesus Christ, is not the Triune Godhead, is not biblical, but everything that God prohibits. The bunny with its fertility connotations and the ancient pagan festivals that used rabbits as symbols of fertility in Babylonian times or the use of eggs, or the use of candy (which derived from the use of pomegranates and oranges that were also used in ancient times of pagan rituals) is identified as devil worship by any thinking Christian. It is no wonder that the use of the symbol of the dove itself as a Christian symbol did not come from the idea of the Spirit resting as a dove upon Christ during His baptism, but as a representative of the Mother of the gods, in whom that Spirit was said to be incarnate, was celebrated as the originator of some of the useful arts and sciences. And we find very readily in Greek mythology that the character attributed to the Minerva, whose name Athena as a synonym for Beltis, the well known name of the Assyrian goddess. Athena, the Minerva of Athens, is universally known as the "goddess of wisdom," the inventress of arts and sciences.<br />We have Rome borrowing pagan rituals to change the date of Christ’s entrance into the word by 4 years to compensate amalgamating the celebration of devil worship with Christianity; the adoption of Ishtar, or Astarte, Easter, as a Papist degradation of worship; the violation of the regulative principle in deeming a day to be worshipped as such, the entrance of eggs from Druidic worship, or pomegranates and oranges that turned into chocolate bunnies and Ishtar eggs for a candy basket to give on Easter Sunday, and the Babylonian influences of pagan rituals through every aspect of Easter and we find you, reader, going out this week to apply this all to little Johnny and little Debbie because everyone else is doing it at church.<br />If you want to be a Papist, then call yourself a Papist, or a Druid, or a Grecian worshipper of the devil. Don’t call yourself Christian by upholding a blatantly obvious demonic holy-day that God abhors. When you partake of such wicked schemes, God’s anger is aroused, and He states in Deuteronomy 32:17, “They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known.” When you give your child their Easter basket, recall God’s words, and heed the Psalmist in Psalm 106:37, “They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to the demons.” Know that you serve the same blasphemies that Romanism has brought into Christendom, and that the Scriptures rightly warn the covenant people of God that they should abstain from such things and be separate. 1 Timothy 4:1 states, “Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons.” When you worship using the devil’s teachings, you give heed to demonic influences and introduce them to your children. You might say, “Hey, come on. It’s just a chocolate bunny, some jelly beans and a few hardboiled eggs right?” No. It is a giving of your mind, heart and family over to the trinkets of the devil and the worship of his holy-day that has been resurrected and founded on demonic influences and teachings – it is devil worship. If you celebrate Easter, you spit in the face of Jesus Christ who is to be worshipped not on one day in the year on “Resurrection Sunday”, but all the days of all your life – for He is the Redeemer of the Covenant people of God every day.<br /> <br />There is a great difference between the works of the devil and the works of the Triune God. The devil deceives by subtle manipulation (Hey, Easter is not all bad), and the Triune Godhead commands nothing more than perfect obedience to His will and Word (Thou Shalt not worship any other gods, nor shall you worship God according to the commandments of men). The devil wants you to worship Jesus Christ in the manner that demonic teachings lay out Easter. God commands you to worship Him as His Word dictates. Deuteronomy 4:2 states, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.” The devil is the father of lies and wants you to believe the lie that Easter is a Christian holiday, like Lent and Christmas. But our true Father is in heaven who commands us today, as Acts 17:30-31 states, “to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead," who is Jesus Christ. Talk about that day and wonder, Christian, if you will stand when He appears. There is safety in appearing in the righteousness of Christ on the Day of Judgment. But there is no safety in any degree of comprises for the sake of a few jelly beans.<br />Post Script – I do not want Christians to be leery of buying a bag of jelly beans or eating a Cadbury Egg. It is not that jelly beans or chocolate bunnies are evil in and of themselves. Buy some jelly beans during the 4th of July and have at them. Make some chocolate bunnies and eat them up during January or September. But do not associate yourself or your family with the Romanist amalgamation of pagan rituals during the March-April time of Lent, Good Friday, Palm Sunday and Easter. Those associations are in direct violation of God’s commands, and those associations overrule your plea to Christian Liberty because God is very clear about His worship. As Revelation 19:10 states, “Worship God.”<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br /> Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind –for more on the Gospel, Reformed and Puritan Theology, and more of the Wild Boar, visit www.apuritansmind.com.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-73001207352732098332008-03-10T00:22:00.000-04:002008-03-10T00:23:37.969-04:00Small Groups - The Abdication of Pastoral ResponsibilityGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />For some reason, contemporary pseudo pastors seem to believe that their main objective is to win souls and grow their church. They win souls by offering an Arminian Gospel, and they grow their church by incorporating those won over into some kind of assimilation into a corporate-like environment. No doubt it works well. Most companies operate by taking new employees, and assimilating them into the structure of the company with specific tasks that will aid the overall streamlined environment. These companies thrive as communication is passed down from the CEO to various departments, that in turn, oversee those departments to the company’s greater good. This is, again, much like many contemporary churches whose pastors abdicate their pastoral responsibility for integration through a man-centered incorporation to their corporate empire. How else can they afford their new Lexus or beachfront summer condo. Numbers means revenue, and revenue means success.<br /><br />What’s the secret? Small groups. As corporations have departments, contemporary churches have small groups.<br /><br />What are small groups? Besides being a blatant disregard for the pastoral duties of overseeing the flock personally, and manageably, small groups give mega congregations the ability to divide up (as if Christ desires His church to be divided) and to learn watered down lessons about self-esteem, church ministries, or whatever doctrines a contemporary church deems suitable to “fellowship with the saints.” Leaders of small groups are called “Small Group Champions” or “Lay Leaders”. Such people are chosen by the pastor, or as Christianity Today writer Fred Smith states, that small group champions are “identified” as “promising people” who can “take on” the guidance of a small group. Smith lists 10 requirements for church ceos to identify small group champions, and 4 conclusions that would read well in any article in the business section of the Wall Street Journal or Fast Company Magazine, like: What will this person do to be liked, or can the CEO Pastor provide a suitable environment for this person to succeed? Of course, there was no mention to glorify God, or ability to take on pastoral duties. No, the contemporary church cares little for those things.<br /><br />In an article called “Confession of a Small-Group Leader” Joe Higginbotham said of himself that his group was successful because “The nonchurchy, spontaneous atmosphere of our group was its most basic appeal.”<br /><br />The Good News of South Florida Newspaper said that “small groups need to be managed”. Of course they do, much like any corporate department.<br /><br />This gives rise to the new phenomena of the “church without walls”. Small Groups extending into the world where people, in a non-churchy environment, managed by champion leaders, and chosen on the basis as to whether they will be liked or not, has a trendy kick to it. Realize listener that the feel good church of the future must continue to create trendy applications in order for you, the non-denominational, unchurched attendee feels a sense of belonging that is indiscriminatory. Don’t you feel good about that?<br /><br />But, as false shepherds continue to propagate such irreverent anti-biblical concepts to abdicate themselves from actually caring for the flock as a flock in expository biblical teaching, and pastoral duties, more and more mainline denominations are picking up bad habits of such abdication because they see that their churches are losing ground to that which is more trendy and popular. In allowing others to take over pastoral responsibility, churches are growing, so they think, erroneously, that it can’t be all bad if growth is inevitable. Growth, they think, in numbers, gives them the ability for their church to do good. But what does that have to do with the glory of Jesus Christ?<br /><br />True pastors, however, hold to the Bible. The Bible is quite plain on this point. Pastors are not to abandon their flock, or give up their responsibility to preaching and teaching the truth to them.<br /><br />Ephesians 4:11-12, “And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ.”<br /><br />Now, many pseudo pastors will whine and wail on this note, and hold steadfast to the corporate principle that their churches are thriving because small group departments are succeeding. But if that’s the case, the best thing that small groups actually do is demonstrate that the pseudo pastor who is leading that church is no pastor at all. The success of the small group over their leadership and preaching of the flock themselves is a true sign that demonstrates their inadequacy to take a leadership role and equip the flock, and further demonstrates that their abdication is a sign that they should have never been behind the pulpit in the first place.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-31230864292001910922008-01-04T00:31:00.000-05:002008-01-04T00:33:25.650-05:00The New YearGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />Contemplation is the hallmark of the wise. Solomon said, in Proverbs 6:6, “Go to the ant, O sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise.” Consideration or reflection, taking time out to do so, is one of the most godly and important aspects in the Christian life. Without reflection and consideration one would not excel in their sanctification.<br /><br />In thinking about the New Year, one of the most obvious reflections arises from the familiar figure by which life is compared to a journey, and the different years of life to successive stages in our course. Just as a traveller is reminded, by looking on a mile-stone, that he has left another stage behind him, and that he has one fewer in his journey ahead, so the commencement of another year should awaken the thoughtful reflection, how large a portion of life is already past, and how much less remains for us before we reach our final destination. Were life bounded by a limit which, besides being fixed and certain in itself, was also ascertainable by each of us – could we all count securely on the full tale of forty years – even on that supposition we might be expected to be seriously impressed by the succession of one year after another, each vanishing away, and leaving a smaller number before us? A young person may say, “Twenty years are gone how short they seem in the retrospect! Yet if I travel fifty more, my race is run!” And the man of mature age might say, “More than half of my allotted time is expired, and in less time than I have already spent here on earth, I shall be in eternity.”<br /><br />Thus, as one stage after another was completed, it is natural to count how many mile-stones have been passed, and to figure out how few remain before us. But how much more natural, and how deeply solemn the thought in the actual circumstances of our case, that we have reached another distinct landmark in our course – we, who “know not what a day may bring forth,” and who are passing on with the assurance that beyond a certain limit, we cannot live.<br /><br />At the same time we remain in the scope of the constant hazard of an early and unexpected death! The maximum of life is known – the minimum of life no man call tell. It is a journey which may extend to seventy years, or it may terminate in one year. It is a voyage on a flowing stream, whose utmost reach may carry a few onward for seventy years, but it is a stream which has many divergent channels opening at every point into the great ocean of eternity.<br /><br />Might not the close of one year and the commencement of another be expected, in such circumstances, to suggest the thought that we have really no certainty except in regard to the years that are past and gone? What do we know? We know that those years they are gone forever, and can never return. But what about the future? We know only this, that our years are drawing fast to an end, and that possibly this may be our last year. Every person has one life. Every person has one life in which to roam the earth and make something of themselves in the light of God’s ever piercing eye. We know what years have been passed over, but at any coming moment we may drop down and die. How long is a moment? How many moments do you have left? The commencement of a new year is only a proof that we are nearer, by one long interval, to the end of our journey. We are nearer, by the time that has passed, to heaven or hell. If the last step – the step by which we pass from this life into eternity is so awful that the very thought of it harrows up our feelings, and makes our flesh creep and our blood run cold, should not every step we take in advance towards it be solemn, and should not every year, which brings us nearer to death, leave us more ready to die? And are you so certain, listener, that the moment you step into eternity that you will be safe under and covered by the righteousness of Jesus Christ and His work in redemption for His elect? Are you one of those who contemplates the New Year in light of the work you will do for God, and are you certain that the New Year will shine forth as one which brings you that much closer to your Savior? Certainly, this is something that wise men contemplate.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to www.apuritansmind.com and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology that honors the Lord Jesus Christ, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/">http://www.apuritansmind.com</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-70779248640669679442007-12-11T04:00:00.000-05:002007-12-27T04:09:27.080-05:00Take Christ Out of Christmas<p>Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.</p><p>There are many articles and papers written to show that Christmas, and other holidays like Easter, are thoroughly unbiblical, and are intended to sway the Christian community away from practicing such “man-made holy-days.” No doubt the authors of such papers have the best interest of the Christian Church in mind, and are not simply jumping upon the bandwagon of “reformed thought” in order to add another notch to their theological belt. However, when these articles begin to substantiate the claim that Christians should have nothing to do with the holiday of Christmas, the weightiest arguments they bring forth are two fold: 1) The appeal to the pagan roots of idolatry, and 2) the history and witness of the Christian Church.</p><p>First, writers appeal to the pagan roots of the holiday as a means to deter Christians from practicing such abominable vestiges even though the 21st century Christmas is not blatantly practicing the same rites as the Babylonians or druids of old once did. For instance, the Christmas tree is set up in some corner of the living room, decorated and lighted, and gifts abound and grow under the tree as December 25th draws near. The appeal is then made to Jeremiah 10:3-4 where idolatry is condemned. It says, “For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple.” Here we see idolatry based in the practice of cutting down, setting up, and decorating a tree. Or they quote Jeremiah 2:20, “For of old I have broken your yoke and burst your bonds; And you said, "I will not transgress,' When on every high hill and under every green tree You lay down, playing the harlot.” Here the evergreen tree was used to promote false religion and idolatry. God was angered at the Israelites for their religious syncretism and their participation in these practices. Idolatry is certainly condemned by God and no Christian should ever be disobeying and transgressing the first table of the Law of God (commandments 1-4) by profaning the worship of God with idols. </p><p>The second appeal is made to the history of the church and its practices. Surely this is an important note to make, and that petition to such testimony is warranted. We could cite the reformers such as Luther and Calvin, the pastors of Geneva city-state, the Waldensen Confession, the Puritan Divines such as Edmund Calamy, Samuel Rutherford, James Durham, Increase Mather, Thomas Vincent, John Owen, Andrew Clarkson, Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, James Fisher, John Willison, John Brown, Robert Shaw (and many more), The Westminster Confession, the Directory of Publick worship, The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and their confession, and various other creeds and confessions. These diligent writers will make it known that the church did not practice this holiday until sometime after the 4th century, and show varied proofs that most opposed the practice altogether, condemning it out rightly. Here we see the siege to discourage the practice and participation of Christmas is usually based on these 2 points. </p><p>Before I give my own view, I would like to address the two avenues above which are the usual lines of reasoning in dissuading Christians from partaking in the Christmas holiday. </p><p>The first argument is certainly important. Christians are certainly never to participate in idolatrous worship. However, the case against Christmas on this point is not that Christians are out rightly bowing down to a tree and worshipping it, or profaning Christ by setting the Yule log on the fire, or desecrating the glory of God by exchanging gifts with one another. I have never met a Christian who blatantly setup a green tree in their home to practice idolatry. The argument presented in the first point above is not directed by those writers against people who setup idols in their home and bow down to them after supper for family devotions. Rather, the argument stems from the pagan practices which lie behind what Christians do with those Christmas trees, Yule logs, wreaths, etc. in days of old. Scripture everywhere condemns idolatry, but the argument that because something has pagan roots is no argument against Christmas. Why is this? Some may believe I am going to appeal to Romans 14 and the Christian’s liberty with holy days as the argument against this. But that passage does not address the situation rightly, and, as a matter of fact condemns such days. Rather, I appeal to 1 Corinthians 8:1-13. It asserts the following:<br /></p><blockquote>Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge.<br />Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. 2And if anyone thinks that he knows<br />anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. 3But if anyone loves God,<br />this one is known by Him. 4Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to<br />idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other<br />God but one. 5For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on<br />earth (as there are many gods and many lords), 6yet for us there is one God, the<br />Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ,<br />through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 7However, there is not in<br />everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat<br />it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled.<br />8But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better,<br />nor if we do not eat are we the worse. 9But beware lest somehow this liberty of<br />yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak. 10For if anyone sees you<br />who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will not the conscience of him<br />who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? 11And because of<br />your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12But when<br />you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin<br />against Christ. 13Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never<br />again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.<br /></blockquote><p>Did Paul have any problem eating meat sacrificed to idols? Not at all. His conscience was clear knowing that food “does not commend us to God”; whether we eat it or not. Trees do not commend us to God, nor do Yule logs, wreaths, or turkey and ham made for the Christmas occasion. These things do not make us better or worse towards God in and of themselves. Paul ate meat that was sacrificed to idols. He abstained from the eating of meat if it would cause those who would bock at the practice to stumble in their faith. Either way, eating or not eating, Paul did not defile his conscience by it. Shall we ask the question, “What went on in ceremonial rites which allowed these meat markets to offer meat sacrificed in this way?” We could go into the abominations of the pagans, their sacrifices, their temple prostitution, their wicked practices with other man-made Gods, in reality worshipping the devil, and the like. We could simply use our imaginations about this and in some cases our imaginations would not be graphic enough to consider what heathen idolatries occurred against the Living God. But Paul ate the meat. Even though the meat had pagan origins, he still ate it. Even though the cow or bull was offered as a sacrifice for devils, slain and drained of its blood, cut up and used in the ceremony, Paul still had no problem eating it. Paul’s determent to eat meat sacrificed to idols was the consideration of a weaker brother. If there was a weaker brother who could not handle, in his own conscience, the thought of eating or practicing such a thing, because Paul was the stronger and more mature Christian, free in Christ to eat what God had made, he still, nevertheless, would have abandoned the practice. He would not have abandoned eating meat sacrificed to idols because of the meat’s pagan origins, but because of his love to the brother in question. </p><p>Christmass (yes I spelled it correctly) cannot be condemned because it has pagan origins. Christmas, as pagan as it might be, and as many pagan ideologies it may possess, cannot be condemned because 1000 years ago or 500 years ago or 5 days ago someone bowed down to the tree and committed idolatry with it. (People hang picture frames through their home to display photos, made from wood – should that deter them since they knew it was once a tree, and someone 500 years ago worshipped trees?) The Christian is not bound by such instances if they are not bowing down to it, and their consciences are cleared before Christ because they have studied and thought through the implications and biblical/historical information on the subject, if that was all there was to it. </p><p>Secondly, the appeal to men may be helpful, but the opinions of men, no matter how renown they may be, should never be the basis of setting the Christian's conscience. The Christian conscience should be captive by the Word of God alone. However, Christians should always weigh and consider the prominent and distinct men of the church (the gifts of Christ to His chosen people) in difficult areas of theology and doctrine. It is certainly helpful and edifying to the soul to see what the councils, creeds, puritans and magisterial reformers thought. In the case at hand, most of church history is opposed to the involvement of the Christian in the celebration of Christmas. Even the city-state of Geneva in 1546 stated they would reprimand anyone who observed the day, believing it was a retreat to Romanism – the heretical monster they were breaking away from. (“Those who observe the Romish festivals or fasts shall only be reprimanded, unless they remain obstinately rebellious.” - Register of the Company of Pastors (Geneva, 1546)). However, the break from the Roman Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation is wholly another point to speak about in comparison to the Christmas celebration many desire to invoke today without any reference to the Catholic Church. In any case, the appeal to men cannot bind the conscience of the Christian, as helpful they may be in their exegetical prowess.</p><p>At this point you may wondering what my position is. It was needful to state the former arguments and positions before going onto what I believe is the crux of the argument against Christmas and other like “holy-days.” Knowing that one cannot utilize pagan origins, nor the opinions of men (perse), as arguments against the practice of Christmas, what biblical grounds would I have against it? </p><p>If Christ was taken out of the picture altogether, XMAS would be acceptable to the Christian. Like Father’s day or Mother’s Day, holidays to exchange gifts and have parties together with family and friends is quite acceptable. The contention that arises is when one places Christ within the Christmass scheme to use it as a day to commemorate and remember His birth, that it becomes a direct violation of the Regulative Principle of worship. Upon the violation of this principle of worship lies the ground by which every Christian should see Christmass as abominable. It is true that extreme debt, excess financial strain, Christmas party debauchery, a-whoring after material wealth, unbridled children demanding certain gifts and throwing tempter tantrums when they are refused them, and the like, also are added into the bag of those things which Christians should oppose during the “jolly season.” However, it is upon the principle of God’s command in worship that Christmas becomes detestable. </p><p>I'm all for Frosty the Snowman, Jack Frost, winter wonderlands, chestnuts roasting on an open fire, exchanging presents, eating candy canes, enjoying really good egg-nog, stuffing stocking, watching "Elf" with James Caan and Will Ferrel, or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer with that classic sung by Burl Ives, as well as all the other holiday festivities. Why? Well, they have nothing, in the way I am explaining here, to do with Jesus Christ and the birth story, or the incarnation. They do not violate, in any way, the Regulative Principle.</p><p>It is necessary to explain, briefly, the Regulative Principle of Worship, and then also argue that high thoughts of Christ, or any kind of meditation on Christ, is worship – no matter how short or long that time is. First, the Regulative Principle teaches that worship is construed only by the direct commands of God in His Word. To allow into worship what is not expressly commanded in the Bible, whether that is for a day or for the regular Sunday service, is false worship. It is a worship fabricated by men, and this violates the principles of worship that God has commanded. For instance, if men say that drama or mime is acceptable in worship because God has not expressly commanded that it not be done, they are violating the Regulative Principle. God expresses states what He does command and does not need to expressly forbid what He does not. (That would take volumes.) </p><p>Scriptural examples abound for this principle. Genesis 4:3-5 says this, “And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell.” God did not accept what Cain brought, though Cain may have brought it sincerely. Sacrifices were to be of blood, for without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Cain’s heart was wrong, and his sacrifice was not what God had commanded of him. </p><p>Another example is in Leviticus 10:1-3 which is a cornerstone for the Regulative Principle. It says,<br /></p><blockquote>“Then Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, each took his censer and put fire in<br />it, put incense on it, and offered profane fire before the LORD, which He had<br />not commanded them. 2So fire went out from the LORD and devoured them, and they died before the LORD. 3And Moses said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke, saying: “By those who come near Me I must be regarded as holy; And before all the people I must be glorified.”” So Aaron held his peace.”<br /></blockquote><p>Here Nadab and Abihu offered something (strange fire) on the altar, but God had not expressly forbid them from doing so. God had only told them what they were supposed to do, not what they should not do as well. You may search all through the passage and never find one instance of God forbidding them not to offer this “strange fire.” Here we see God’s mind on the principle. God killed them for disobeying Him though God had not expressly forbidden the practice. This should cause all to stop and think about how we must be careful to know the mind of God on matters of importance such as worship. </p><p>Another example is in 2 Samuel 6:3-7,<br /></p><blockquote>“So they set the ark of God on a new cart, and brought it out of the house of<br />Abinadab, which was on the hill; and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drove<br />the new cart. And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab, which was on the<br />hill, accompanying the ark of God; and Ahio went before the ark. Then David and<br />all the house of Israel played music before the LORD on all kinds of instruments<br />of fir wood, on harps, on stringed instruments, on tambourines, on sistrums, and<br />on cymbals. And when they came to Nachon's threshing floor, Uzzah put out his<br />hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. Then the<br />anger of the LORD was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him there for his<br />error; and he died there by the ark of God.” </blockquote><p>Uzzah did not want to see the ark of God fall into the mud. It was toppling on the ox cart that they were using to transport it. God had expressly stated that they were to transport the ark with poles, not on an oxcart. Numbers 4:6 and 15 says, </p><blockquote><p>“Then they shall put on it a covering of badger skins, and spread over that a<br />cloth entirely of blue; and they shall insert its poles…And when Aaron and his<br />sons have finished covering the sanctuary and all the furnishings of the<br />sanctuary, when the camp is set to go, then the sons of Kohath shall come to<br />carry them; but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die.” </p></blockquote><p>Uzzah did not use the poles expressly commanded by God; he used an ox cart. 1 Chronicles 15:13-15 states, </p><blockquote>“For because you did not do it the first time, the LORD our God broke out<br />against us, because we did not consult Him about the proper order." So the<br />priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the LORD<br />God of Israel. And the children of the Levites bore the ark of God on their<br />shoulders, by its poles, as Moses had commanded according to the word of the<br />LORD.” </blockquote><p>Not only did Uzzah not use what was expressly commanded (the poles), rather, he used what he wanted (the ox cart). His transgression did not stop there. </p><p>Uzzah also touched the ark because he did not want the mud to defile the sacred object. But the Lord killed him because the mud was cleaner than Uzzah. </p><p>The principle is set in such passages above, and ratified in other passages such as Deuteronomy 4:1-2 which says, “Now, O Israel, listen to the statutes and the judgments which I teach you to observe, that you may live, and go in and possess the land which the LORD God of your fathers is giving you. You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” Also, Deuteronomy 12:30-32 says, “…take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise.' You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods. “Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” In these verses God is specific to inform the Israelites that they should not add or take away from the law, or sore judgments will come upon them. Two of the more poignant verses are from the lips of Christ and Paul. Jesus said, “These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men. (Matt. 15:8-9)” When men introduce their own ideas into worship, they have violated the Regulative Principle that Christ has given, even if Christ has not expressly forbidden it. Paul calls this “will-worship” in Colossians 2:23 which states, “These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, [translated literally “will-worship”] false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.” Here we see that self-imposed religion, or the worship of one’s own will, violates the principles God has expressly set, though the Bible may not expressly forbid such practices. Jeroboam did this very thing in 1 Kings 12:32-33, “Jeroboam ordained a feast on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the feast that was in Judah, and offered sacrifices on the altar. So he did at Bethel, sacrificing to the calves that he had made. And at Bethel he installed the priests of the high places which he had made. So he made offerings on the altar which he had made at Bethel on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, in the month which he had devised in his own heart. And he ordained a feast for the children of Israel, and offered sacrifices on the altar and burned incense.” God did not command this. Jeroboam took this upon himself to institute. This pertained to worship and violated the Regulative Principle. </p><p>Some may appeal here to the feast of Purim in the book of Esther saying that they imposed a time of worship. This is not the case at all. The feast of Purim was not worship. Esther 9:18, 26, and 28 state, “The Feast of Purim: But the Jews who were at Shushan assembled together on the thirteenth day, as well as on the fourteenth; and on the fifteenth of the month they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness…So they called these days Purim, after the name Pur. Therefore, because of all the words of this letter, what they had seen concerning this matter, and what had happened to them…that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city, that these days of Purim should not fail to be observed among the Jews, and that the memory of them should not perish among their descendants.” This was not worship. It was a day of feasting. It was a day of gladness, but not an institution of worship like Nadab and Abihu and their strange fire, or Jeroboam and his sacrifices. Some appeal to The Westminster Confession in their statement concerning lawful days of “thanksgiving” in order to appeal to a day of thanksgiving for Christmas. However, The Westminster Confession says the following, “The reading of the Scriptures with godly fear, the sound preaching and conscionable hearing of the Word, in obedience unto God, with understanding, faith, and reverence, singing of psalms with grace in the heart; as also, the due administration and worthy receiving of the sacraments instituted by Christ, are all parts of the ordinary religious worship of God: beside religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner. (WCF Chapter 21, Section 5; They use Esther 9:20-22 as a proof text for “and thanksgivings upon special occasions”, not for worship.) The Westminster Confession makes the distinction between worship which appears in the first part of the paragraph, and then separates other days of spiritual edification by the word “besides.” They are not the same, and appeal to them is unwarranted. </p><p>We see then that God has set the Principles by which sinful men may approach him, and any addition or subtraction to that institutes a self-willed worship which is abhorrent to God. </p><p>Secondly, we must define whether or not Christmass actually falls under the category of worship. Is setting aside a certain day, once a year to honor Christ’s birth, a violation of the Regulative Principle and worship? Apart from asking this question, the Christian should be the first to realize that giving gifts, Santa Claus, Christmas Trees, Yule Logs and the like, have absolutely nothing to do with the incarnation of Jesus Christ. The closest in any of these is the giving of gifts, but we do not give gifts to Christ as the Magi did (which was for a specific purpose) but rather, we give them to one another. How is this honoring to Christ? I have yet found anyone who can justify any of these things in a lawful connection to Christ and His Word. It just does not exist. Instead, they are following, blindly, the Roman Catholic institution of the Christ-mass. Check your history....</p><p>In attaching homage to Jesus Christ and the honoring of His incarnation to Christmas, men are setting apart a solemn day of worship by their own accord. Churches go to great lengths to celebrate “the advent of our Lord”. They light candles, and confer with church tradition to make this a season where they especially remember His birth in the month of December. In doing this they are instituting a day, or series of days of worship (if there are special events ensuing) which are not instituted in Scripture and are additions to God’s prescribed rule of authority. The only day set by God in the Scriptures for solemn worship and remembrance of Christ in any way, is the Lord’s Day or Christian Sabbath. To create another day would violate the Regulative Principle. Men should never impose their ideas of worship on God and believe God will accept them. </p><p>Whenever Christians have thoughts of Christ or of God, they are beginning to engage in worship. Jeremiah Burroughs in his book Gospel Worship defines worship simply as “thoughts about God.” The interaction of the mind of man to the mind of God, to think His thoughts after Him, is worship. The opposite of having thoughts of God and worshipping Him, is to suppress and remove God from the thoughts; Psalm 10:4 states, “The wicked in his proud countenance does not seek God; God is in none of his thoughts.” The Christian is to have his thoughts fixed upon God. We are to be living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to Him every minute of every day – but there are also times of public and private worship which take place at God’s command. Colossians 3:2 states, “Set your mind on the things above…” Isaiah 26:3 says that the righteous’ “mind is stayed on You.” Meditating and thoughtfulness about God is worship. Formal worship, gathering together as a body of believers in a church setting to hear preaching and teaching, etc., is commanded of God to His people. Private worship is still worship, though it be done in the home. In either case, creating a day for formal worship, such as Christmas, is a violation of the principles of worship. If one were to take one day a month to meditate on the incarnation in their private devotions, there would be no contention. It is the formalizing of a specific day to honor Christ which is the problem. Public or private worship is still to be regulated by God’s Word and not the imaginations of men’s minds. </p><p>One final thought is important to add: If Christmas were wholly biblical, and centered around the worship of Christ, and the glorification and honor of God, why would the world enjoy it? The world loves Christmas. They revel in it. If it were something truly biblical, or something truly edifying to the soul, then they would hate it and would not be able to stand it. Isaiah 53:1-3 states,<br /></p><blockquote>“Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; and when we see Him, there is no beauty<br />that we should desire Him. 3He is despised and rejected by men.” </blockquote><p>The Gospel of Jesus Christ, which the very purpose of the incarnation, is abhorrent to the world – they hate it. They reject the Gospel and despise Jesus. They do not desire nor love Him. But they love the holiday season. Some Christians desire to “reclaim” Christmas and put the “Christ” back in “Christ-mas.” But what the participating Christian has done is taken the world and adapted himself to it. He is to be salt and light, being transformed from the world, not giving into it. Not only does he break the principle of worship set in the Word of God by God Himself, but he also associates himself with the world; he adapts himself to their practices with a “Christian twist.” Moreover, we know that “friendship with the world is enmity toward God.” </p><p>It is true, that on account of the Bible’s direct witness to the Regulative Principle, most of the good theologians and pastors of the church throughout history have rejected such practices as participating in Christmas, or Easter, or the like, until we have happened upon our more theologically lazy century. Defining worship and the Regulative principle is of utmost importance, and no Christian should be theologically lazy about what God requires of them. They should study the subject diligently that they would be able to give an answer for the hope that lies in them. </p><p>1 John 2:15-17, </p><blockquote>“Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world,<br />the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world--the lust of<br />the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--is not of the Father but<br />is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who<br />does the will of God abides forever.” </blockquote><p>This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.</p><p>Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to www.apuritansmind.com and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology that honors the Lord Jesus Christ, visit www.apuritansmind.com. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-29691753361070823272007-12-02T21:06:00.000-05:002007-12-02T21:07:30.521-05:00Owe No Man AnythingGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />Days in history often find themselves the matter or substance of what makes up history. November 23rd, for example, was a day that sparked certain ideas about historical events that occurred on that day from latter years. On November 23, 1889, the first jukebox was installed at the Palais Royal Saloon in San Francisco. On November 23, 1936, the first issue of Life magazine hit the newsstands. The cover photograph, by Margaret Bourke-White, featured the Fort Peck Dam. On Nov. 23, 1943, during World War II, United States forces seized control of the Tarawa and Makin atolls from the Japanese. On November 23, 1980 a series of earthquakes devastated southern Italy, killing some 2,600 people. On November 23, 2004, opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko declared himself the winner of Ukraine's disputed presidential election and took a symbolic oath of office. Now, what newsy event pinpointed November 23rd, 2007 – the day and year in which you live? According to the news, it marked the busiest shopping day of the year, with an overall rising percentage of 7% for shoppers spending money this year as opposed to last year the Day after Thanksgiving.<br /><br />We are, at this time, in the thrall of Xmas consumerism. According to the nostalgic songs, this holiday season is supposed to be the “most joyous time of the year”, although we find countless Christians trying to keep up with the Jones’ and maxing out their credit cards in order to make the “holiday” special and bright for their families.<br /><br />It is, today, December 3, 2007. People are thinking and planning what they will buy little Johnny for Christmas, or maybe what to buy for their wife or husband. They are willing to create some holiday magic by buying presents which will be all wrapped up in bows. They have to outdo themselves from last year in order to make this year more special, and they know they cannot rely on Santa. They will have to go out and purchase these gifts one by one, and one by one their credit cards get maxed out.<br /><br />It is, however, for good cheer that they place themselves in debt. The Reserve Bank of Australia statistics show credit card debt in Australia is now a staggering $41 billion. Experts believe that Americans will spend an average of $800 on Xmas presents alone, which translats into over 100 billion dollars collectively of credit card debt.<br /><br />God has something to say about credit card wielding Christians who have little sense about debt. Romans 13:8 states, “Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law.” We may be indebted to one another in love, and fulfill the law by loving one another, but we are exhorted to owe no man anything. The Greek “anything” means anything. Any “thing” is not to be owed. It is especially emphatic in the idea that if you continue to support yourself when you owe something to someone else, you are in sin. For example, if you run up your Xmas bill to max out a credit card, and then go out to eat for lunch, that would be sin. Romans 13:8 presses us to consider very importantly that we must be a good steward with our money at the expense of making holiday cheer go around. If we don’t have the money to pay for what we buy, we should not buy it. Yes, that has further implications for all of life, and regular debt that people incur, but during this time of crazy consumerism, one should not be challenged or tempted to keep up with the Joneses. The Joneses don’t care about God’s law. They are those who try and satisfy their own bellies and indulge for the sake of the Stoic maxim, “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.” That translates into being irresponsibility because of one’s self love. Instead, be indebted to one another in love, instead of in love with Xmas consumerism and the façade of holiday cheer that translates into holiday debt. Don’t make December 3rd a day in history where God records your sin of being in debt to a fault.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-62003040299558137442007-10-29T14:11:00.000-04:002007-10-29T14:12:55.126-04:00Remembering the ReformationGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />History cannot be documented simply as chronological events, but the intrusion of God into time to establish His redemptive purposes in and through men. Two epochs in this Spirit’s work point to the greatest revolutions ever documented: the entrance of the Lord of Glory in the fullness of time in the little town of Bethlehem, and the era of the Reformation breaking out of a reign of eclipsing doctrinal darkness and superstition. Christ brought forth the Gospel of God, and the Reformers rescued the Gospel from drowning in a sea of ecclesiastical expedience. Since the Gospel writers, carried along by the Spirit inspired as they were, have given an accurate account of the life of Christ and the early church, in today’s modern age, we ought always to desire to remember our roots, and the reformation.<br /><br />God does not intrude into time to arrange events, but to begin revolutions that cover over the face of the earth. Revolution is what the Reformation was all about. Can you, listener, say the same about your church? Is your church revolutionary? Would the Reformers think of your church as one partaking in their revolution, or would your pastor and the people that attend to hear him, say that they exist to meet the needs of the emerging culture that the church today exists in?<br /><br />Though God has His providential hand in the affairs of Alexander the Great as well as the apostle Paul, the greater question that should concern the Christian surrounds the remedy of the fallen soul. To truly document history is to set one’s historical eye upon the Gospel of Christ and its affect on the world.<br /><br />The Reformation would bring back justification by faith alone, where the popes has set up a capitalistic endeavor to make faith something to be bought, and achieved by works. The indulgence rapidly affected the superstitious that had already been familiar to a submission of their will under the Vicar of Christ on earth. The clergy had become the conduits by which the grace of God, or the favor of the popes, was to be dispensed. The works of bygones saints, even the supererogatory merits of Jesus Christ, could be bought for a price in order to secure the salvation of the buyer, or aid in the release of those already captive to the purging of sin in purgatory. Financial advantage to the Roman Church did not go unnoticed, and purgatory became one of the chief doctrines to validate indulgences in the thirteenth century, and to furnish the livelihood of the Pope.<br /><br />The Reformation brought man face to face with God rather than having popery “interpose the Church between God and man.” Popery separates men from God and hides the Gospel from them, where the Reformation, through the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and justification by faith alone, will unite men to God. Does your church bring men face to face with the Jesus Christ of the Bible and of the Reformation, or does your pastor meet the needs of the people in his sermons. Does your church hold steadfastly to the doctrines taught by the Reformation, or just those that your church and pastor deem convenient? And what about you, listener? Are you a closet reformist? Or are you a revolutionary?<br /><br />I can hear you now. You’ve seen the Luther movie. You’d shake your fist and stand your ground amidst opposition. You’d say the same things and borrow the same lines Luther did, right? Would the people in your church, at your work, in your family, amidst your friends say the same things about you? Would they say you are a revolutionary in the same light as the reformation?<br />Ok, I know, you are no Luther or Calvin. That’s not your place, right? That’s for your pastor to emulate. You are just a simple hard working Christian. You are just trying to get through the day at work, and get through a simple devotion time with your family. You don’t have the time to be a revolutionary.<br /><br />The Reformation had made its way from the minds of a few men zealous for the truth, to the practical application of the doctrines they represented in the life of the Church. People lived out, upon pain of death, their Christianity. I know, I know, listener, your persecution doesn’t extend that far. We aren’t speaking about when you get a flat tire and feel God is against you today, or when your pool pump breaks. We are talking about, however, the reality behind a true Christianity. You, listener, may not have to worry so much, because, as you already made clear, you are not a revolutionary. You loved to watch the Luther Movie each year, it gets you stoked, but far be it for you to challenge your church on whether or not it really falls in line with the reformation, and with the Gospel they preached.<br /><br />Here is the difference between your “reformation” ideas and “The Protestant Reformation”: you enjoy the emotional high that a movie brings with ideas that you might hold dear. Would you lose your job for your beliefs? Would your pastor be willing to be thrown out of his church for teaching the Regulative Principle? Would it be OK if your family was divided as a result of the truth of Scripture as long as Christ was being glorified in the truth? If you really embrace the Reformation as a revolutionary, how could these things not happen? True Biblical Reformation, on the other hand, advanced the truth of academic learning and filtered that down into the hand of the laity, regardless of the outcome. It may be that you need not only remember the Reformation in some touching recollection of a scene Hollywood has drummed up with Luther standing at the Diet of Worms, but rather go back and read of the life and deaths of those men and women that held steadfast to being revolutionaries of their time.<br /><br />In truly remembering the Reformation historically, one has no choice but to practically apply it as a revolutionary today. Is the Reformation just a picture in a book, or a scene from a movie? Or is it real to you, embraced by you, propagated through you and lived out?<br /><br />Remember the Reformation differently this year. Make it count all year through.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a> and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. Also in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and a new book that will be first in a series called “The Writings of A Puritan’s Mind” which will be a compilation of Puritan sermons not yet published. Puritan Publications has already released its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology that honors the Lord Jesus Christ, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-15209330117713539732007-10-25T09:27:00.000-04:002007-10-25T09:30:05.639-04:00Bad Plagiarists for the Reformation<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program <i>The Wild Boar News Podcast</i> from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Jeremiah 6:16, “Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">There are a variety of preachers that strive after reformation out there in the world, many with good intentions. They preach cardinal truths in order to propagate the teachings of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Reformation, as much as they are able. We don’t look down upon such things. God has granted many preachers a mediocrity that they are unable to escape, even to His glory, yet still they desire to preach God’s word and give it a little help. What do I mean?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Let pull a file. Case number 4,324,345. For the establishment of secrecy and non-embarrassment, let’s call this pastoral case number “Pastor Harry.” Pastor Harry knows its Reformation month. October rises up among the months of the year as one in which we remember the recovery of the Gospel from the cloak and darkness of the papists. Hus, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Luther, Calvin, Farel, Corrault, Oecolampadius, Zwingli and others gave themselves over the recovery of the Word of God. Pastor Harry decides to take a reformation sermon, let’s say a sermon from Calvin, and “adapt” it to today’s congregation. After a week’s preparation of taking a good sermon by Calvin and adapting it for the 21st century church, Pastor Harry feels as though he will now be able to take such an exposition of the Word of God and deliver it to his congregation. He ascends the pulpit, and begins with an announcement to read the Scriptures, but first tells his people a story about his childhood, his job, or some other illustrious notation that he believes will hook the hearer. Then he segues into a prayer asking for the Holy Spirit’s help, and then after the “amen”, continues with another illustration.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Next, he announces that the sermon was adapted from Calvin’s works, and he finally, after 10 minutes, reads the Scripture. After a 30 minute unzealous explanation, he uses Calvin’s commentary and application, and then closes, hoping that his congregation would see some of the same truths he did in the passage at hand.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">People like this may be zealous for the reformation, and for that credit is due. But the Reformation was founded upon a return to the Word of God, not the help that a 10 minute introduction had on childhood illustrations or talks that hook the listener. The very day such a pastor is to honor, he actually detracts from when he follows that kind of thinking. Instead, he should realize, with the Reformers, that the Word of God does not need any help. What do I mean?</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Look at the prophets – when they came a spoke, they said, “Thus says the Lord” and then continued to explain what the Lord said. Not childhood illustrations or clever anecdotes that hook the listener. God’s Word was enough. Calvin began his sermon on the Passion of Christ by quoting the Scripture, and then immediately by saying, after the Scripture was read, “We have already seen in the preceding verses…” etc. In Calvin’s 16th sermon on Pentecost, he quotes Acts 2:1-4 and then begins to explain the passage. In Calvin’s first sermon on the deity of Christ he reads John 1:1-5 and then says “The Word “Gospel” declares how God loved us…” and goes to explain the passage. In his first sermon on Election and Reprobation, Calvin read Genesis 25:12 and then says “We have here to consider the difference…” and then further explains the passage. Luther did the same. Wycliffe did the same. Tyndale did the same. Every republished Puritan work does the same. Those hungry and excited for reformation in this light read the Scriptures first, and then preached what the Scriptures meant, pulled a doctrine from the Scriptures, and then applied those Scriptures. All their time was spent about the Word of God. They trusted that the Word of God was enough.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Now Pastor Harry not only began wrong, but bored his congregation with a so-so sermon. It was not that Pastor Harry bored his congregation; he’s done that before. What is astounding that he bored them with an adapted sermon of Calvin. Calvin’s sermons are not boring. Calvin’s sermons were huge flames of heartfelt power and energy surrounding recovering a glimpsed Gospel. Pastor Harry not only bored his congregation with a so-so message, he could not even copy the reformer well. Such is the state of Christianity with men who stand behind the pulpit and are only wishful in their thinking toward the Reformation. They do not stand upon the Word, and the Word alone, because the Word needs help. It needs to be coddled, and adapted.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Maybe you have experienced this in your own church.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">In remembering the reformation and the power behind it, one must see, at least historically if not practically, that all these faithful theologians and preachers were used by God because they stood firmly upon the Word of God and “desired the old paths.”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Remember Jeremiah 6:16 says, “Thus says the LORD: "Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls.” The Scripture does not stop there. Its continues, “But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'”</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Such is the case of many pastors who desire reformation today, but are unwilling to be unswerving in their devotion to its principles. Its principles stand firmly on the old paths, on the Word of God alone. Such men are simply bad plagiarists. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><span style="font-family: "Courier New";">Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: rgb(204, 153, 0);">www.apuritansmind.com</span></a> and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. Also in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and a new book that will be first in a series called “The Writings of A Puritan’s Mind” which will be a compilation of Puritan sermons not yet published. Puritan Publications has already released its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology that honors the Lord Jesus Christ, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: rgb(204, 153, 0);">www.apuritansmind.com</span></a>.</span></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-67632671995768155732007-10-01T04:28:00.000-04:002007-10-03T04:30:40.504-04:00The Way of the HeathenGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br /> “After one's own birthday, the two major Satanic holidays are Walpurgisnacht (May 1st) and Halloween.”<br /><br />The Satanic Bible, by Anton Levey, Page 96, Segment on Religious Holidays<br /><br />Around October 1st, American grocery stores stock their shelves with candy corn, chocolate bats, and miniature Snickers bars. They lace the isles with cobwebs, hang pictures of witches on top of the shelves, setup small graveyards surrounded by ghoulish figurines and call it fun. Why do they do this? Well, they are readying themselves for the upcoming celebration of Halloween, and they know you, Christian listener, will partake of their fun. Halloween purports to offer a time where people can have fun at the expense of all that is righteous and holy. It is a celebration of devils. <br /><br />Halloween is blatantly, and immodestly open about its Satanic nature. Halloween is intricately linked to certain ideas and motives. There were a number of Celtic and Druidic holy days (“holiday”) which aid us in understanding the rise of Halloween. Days of “remembrance” concerning the solstices and equinoxes relating to the year's four seasons were hallmark days of worship for these pagan religions. These eight celebration days (the eve of the day and the day itself four times a year) were the most important times of the year for the ancient Druids, the priestly class among the Celts. Among these 4 solstice days reigned the most significant remembrance of an event known as “Samhain,” a celebration of the end of autumn and the beginning of darkness, of winter and the New Year. Samhain was one of the four key parts of the Celtic seasonal calendar. <br /><br />Samhain occurred on November 1st and its eve was October 31st – the time when the celebrating actually commenced. This ancient festival was in honor of their lord of the dead, a Druid deity, who later became known as “the grim reaper.” On this night, the pagan Celts believed that the two worlds, the physical world and the spirit world, drew closest together and that ghosts and apparitions of the dead could roam about the physical plane. <br /><br />It was the Druidical belief that on the eve of this festival Samhain, lord of death, called together the wicked spirits that within the past 12 months had been condemned to inhabit the bodies of animals. Literal human sacrifices were offered on this night to the spirits of the dead, as they supposedly visited their earthly haunts and their friends.<br /><br />The modern custom of going from door to door asking for food and candy goes back to the time of the Druids. They believed that sinful, lost souls were released upon the earth by Samhain for one night on October 31st while they awaited their judgment. Lost souls were thought to throng about the houses of the living and were greeted with banquet-laden tables. People greatly feared these spirits and thought that the spirits would harm and even kill them if the sacrifices they gave did not appease Samhain. They carved demonic faces into large turnips, placing a candle in them to keep the evil spirits away from their homes. They believed it was the best time for divinations concerning the future, including marriage, luck, health, and death. They invoked the help of their false god for these purposes. Believing this was the time to appease the supernatural powers which controlled the processes of nature, these pagan worshipers made offerings of food and drink, performed rituals, and sacrificed animals and humans in huge fires atop “sacred” hilltops in an attempt to ward off these spirits.<br /><br />To protect themselves from the mean tricks of these spirits (like killing livestock), the Druids offered them good things to eat (sometimes food, sometimes female children). The Druids also disguised themselves in order that the spirits would think the Druids belonged to their own evil company, and therefore, not bring any harm to the Druids. The most horrible practice during this festival were the sacrifices made by the Druids. The sacrifices were both for divination purposes and to ward off disease, defeats in battle, etc. These sacrifices were both animal and human. Those human sacrifices killed could include criminals, captured enemies, volunteers and kidnap victims. They were gruesome sacrifices, and the divination was based on how the person reacted as they died. Caesar wrote, “They believe that human life must be rendered for human life if the divinity of the immortal gods is to be appeased.” Cannibalism was also practiced for medical and cultic purposes.<br /><br />After the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, Christianity spread throughout Europe and many Celts were converted. Catholic priests tried to replace the Celtic holidays with “Christian” ones. Around 610 A.D., they created a new holiday in May, All Hallows' Day (now All Saints' Day) to honor martyred saints. The Roman Catholic church became interested in these people while attempting to “evangelize” them. Irish records tell of the fascination the Catholic monks had with the “powerful” Druids, and Druids soon became important members of their monasteries. Later, around the 5th century, as the Catholic Church developed and moved into the area, instead of adding a new day to celebrate, the Roman Church took over the Samhain celebration. A later custom developed where people would go door-to-door on Nov. 2, requesting small cakes in exchange for the promise of saying prayers for some of the dead relatives of each house. This arose out of the religious belief that the dead were in a state of limbo before they went to heaven or hell and that the prayers of the living could influence the outcome (which is totally fallacious). Pope Gregory the Great decided to incorporate the Druids' holiday into the church. He made the proclamation, “They are no longer to sacrifice beasts to the devil, but they may kill them for food to the praise of God, and give thanks to the giver of all gifts for His bounty.” In the 9th century “All Hallow's Day” was moved to November 1st to replace Samhain. After the Roman Catholic Church became the “official” religion of the empire, Pope Gregory III set aside a day in which those who had died for the Christian faith would be remembered. Part of the festivity would include a pageant where people would dress up as one of these departed “saints” and some as the devil. This day had been in May, but by the 9th century it was moved to Nov. 1 and called “All Saints' Day” to remember the church saints that had died. November 2 was called “All Souls' Day” and it honored the souls of those who had died the previous year. An alternate name for All Saints Day was “All Hallows Day” and the night prior then would be “All Hallows Eve” which then became shortened to “Halloween.” Pope Gregory IV decreed that the day was to be a universal Roman Catholic church observance. So, the origins of contemporary Halloween are a mixture of old Celtic pagan rituals, superstitions, and varied Roman Catholic traditions.<br /><br />The English Puritans, and founding fathers of America, refused to permit the holiday to be observed because they knew it was a Satanic holiday which was condemned by the Biblical record. Halloween was not widely celebrated in the U.S. until about 1900. It seems that its vibrancy began in the 1840's where there was a potato famine in Ireland which sent thousands of Roman Catholic Irish to America. Unfortunately, they brought Halloween with them.<br /><br />Not only is it important to understand the historical background to the day, but it is also important to understand the various ideas which are purposed for the “worship” of the day. For instance, the huge fires atop the “sacred” hilltops in which the Druids sacrificed animals and humans derived their name from the skeletons of those who died in them. The words “bone” and “fire” formed the word “bonfire.” The orange flames lit up the black night, and here is where we find the commonly accepted colors of Halloween. As these pagan worshipers danced around and jumped through the fire, they wore masks of animal-heads and animal-skin costumes. The head of each household was given live embers to start a new fire on his hearth which would last until the next autumn. It was believed this fire would protect their homes from danger throughout the year.<br /><br />Jack-o'-lanterns were originally carved from large turnips. The Celts carried these carved lanterns through their villages in an attempt to ward off evil spirits. Later, Irish folklore resulted in a tale explaining the use of “jack-o'-lanterns”: a man named Jack tricked the devil into climbing a tree. Once the devil was in the tree, Jack carved a cross on the trunk, “preventing” the devil from coming down. The devil then made a deal with Jack promising to keep him out of hell after he died if only he would remove the cross from the tree. After Jack died, he could not go to hell, and he was not allowed to enter into heaven. He was forced to wander around the earth with a single candle to light his way. The candle was placed in a turnip to keep it burning longer. When the Irish came to America in the 1800's (during the potato famine), they adopted the pumpkin instead of the turnip. Along with these traditions, they brought the idea that the black cat was considered by some to be reincarnated spirits who had prophetic abilities.<br /><br />What about all those “kids” games like bobbing for apples? The Romans honored the dead with a festival called Feralia, conveniently dated in late October. It was a festival to honor Pomona, their goddess of fruit trees, who was often pictured wearing a crown of apples. During this festival, they ran races and played games to honor the “Apple Queen” and used omens such as apple parings thrown over the shoulder or nuts burned in the fire in order to predict the future concerning their marital prospects. When the Romans conquered the Celts, they combined local Samhain customs with their own pagan harvest festival. Bobbing for apples was derived from this blended pagan celebration.<br /><br />And what of the old saying, “Trick-or-Treat?” The Druids would visit house to house, knocking on doors and requesting a “treat;” food, clothing, etc, for departed spirits (which, no doubt, they kept for themselves. They were clothed in their animal masks and skins, and carried candle-lit, carved turnips, (or sometimes squashes) to ward off evil spirits, as mentioned before. If the party of the house denied their request for “treats” then they would pronounce a curse on the household with their powerful magic, and summon demons, nymphs and devils to torment the property, livestock, and family of the household. These are the “tricks.” Conveniently this was a day when the moon was full, the most “sacred” time of the month for occultist practitioners, and the ominous for the superstitious.<br /><br />What is the Christian to make of all this? What directive should the Christian think about concerning this holy day in pagan history which now invades itself into our homes through advertising, and in the common market through selling its wares? <br /><br />Should a Christian partake or relate to the unfruitful works of darkness? Ephesians 5:11-12 says, “And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.” What does it mean to have “fellowship?” The word derives from the Greek “koinonia” which means, literally, “commonness.” Those who follow the Lord should have no commonness with the unfruitful works of darkness. Halloween is filled with darkness. Dark, evil, wicked occultic practices makes Halloween Halloween. The Bible specifically commands us to avoid every kind of evil (1 Thessalonians 5:22). How could we possibly, knowing the Bible condemns the practices and ideas of Halloween as intrinsically anti-Christian, partake in such a day?<br /><br />The Old Testament is leavened with a multitude of verses which condemn occultism and its practices, and to avoid them completely: Deuteronomy 18:9-14 is one of the more explicit passages covering an overview of the occult practices to disdain, “When you are come into the land which Jehovah your God gives you, you shall not learn to do according to the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you he that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, that uses divination, that uses auguries, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or one that inquires of a spirit of Python, or a soothsayer, or one that consults the dead. For every one that does these things is an abomination to Jehovah, and because of these abominations Jehovah your God does dispossess them from before you. You shall be perfect with Jehovah your God. For these nations, which you shall dispossess, hearkened unto those that use auguries, and that use divination; but as for you, Jehovah your God has not suffered you to do so.” The strongest word in the Old Testament for wicked actions, besides the word “wicked” itself, is the word “abomination.” These practices are abominable. They are abominable whether they are just for fun, or for real. God desired that his people abhor such practices, and rid the land of those who practice such evils. Exodus 22:18, “You shall not let a witch live.” They were to kill them and liberate the land of the abominable practice of witchcraft and sorcery.<br /><br />The sign or symbol of a thing is not the thing itself, but a representative of the thing. For instance, the Lord’s Supper is a sign or symbol of the body of Christ – not the body itself. Halloween, in its essence, is representative of wickedness, and a host of abominable practices condemned by God. This means that those who practice Halloween are representing those abominable practices even if they dress their children up in a clown’s outfit instead of a vampire’s cloak. The Druids did not wear costumes which represented Frankenstein, or the Mummy. They wore outfits of animal skins; bears, wolves, and the like. They were not “horrific” perse; much like the Halloween costume of a clown. The outfit does not make Halloween evil, rather, Halloween dictates that the participator wear an outfit. And the outfit, whatsoever that may entail, represents the wickedness of the day, and glorifies the devil – even if it is simply a cowboy outfit. It’s not the outfit, but the day which is necessarily wicked. So, what should the Christian do? “Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (Rev 18:4).”<br /><br /> Halloween is a festival based on fear (think about the “fun” of a haunted house). The Druids were power-hungry sinners who desired to gain control over others for their own purposes, quickly. This is at the essence of “witchcraft” which literally means “manipulation.” In complete contrast, however, the Scriptures replace fear with love. 2 Timothy 1:7 says that the Spirit of God has not given us a “spirit of fear.” The fear in this passage is for the Lord, and His ability to judge and dispose of men in hell. Men are afraid of a God who can do this. They have a spirit of fear – they are afraid. Rather, those who are saved and regenerated by the Spirit of God gain a spirit of love. This is obtained from the fruit of the Spirit, and knows no place of fear, or being afraid (reverence - yes, fearfulness - no). Why would the Christian desire to entangle themselves in any variety of fear at all? Does the Christian realize that fear, in its root, is a fear of death? The sting of death has been done away with in Christ. When someone attends a “haunted house” or a “scary movie” they jump in fright because they are housed in mortal bodies that can experience pain and suffering (a foretaste of hell). They are scared to die, but receive a type of exhilaration from their “brush with death.” This is the result of a twisted and perverse fallen soul. Why would they want to glorify fear, dying, and death? Why do they enjoy it? It is part of the curse and fall of man (cf. Genesis 3).<br /><br /> How much ground should the Christian give the devil? Is there any room for compromise? No, there is none. The Christian should have a holy hatred of the devil and everything he represents. “Give no place to the devil, (Eph. 4:2).” Halloween represents all that the devil loves and propagates against the holiness of God’s character. When Christians participate in occult festivals, they are ascribing glory of the lord Samhain, the devil, the god of this world. They may ease their conscience by saying they are worshipping God at their Fall Festival, the true Lord of the harvest, but when has God ever inaugurated this kind of worship? I have no qualms about having a costume party on June17th, or February 12th, insignificant days (provided the costumes are not degrading or evil). Costume parties are not the issue, nor are they sinful in and of themselves. It is the festival of Samhain which is the issue; it is Halloween. Will Christian parents plan a costume party in July instead of October 31st? No they will not. Why? Because they desire to make their children happy and fit in with the neighbors. Christian parents should be teaching their children to hate worldliness, not thriving after it. “You adulterous generation, do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity towards God? Anyone who is a friend of the world is at enmity with God” (James 4:4-5).<br /><br /> If a Christian participates in this unholy festival, they must consider that the world is watching them. For instance, let us imagine Jack is a next-door neighbor to Bob. Both have families with young children. Jack is a witch (warlock). Bob is a Christian. Jack and his family know that Bob claims Christianity as their faith. On Halloween Jack dresses up the children and takes them Trick-or-Treating, (before he brings them into the woods for his Wicca rituals.) Bob dresses his three children up as a beaver, a clown, and a cowboy. Jack dresses his children up as a hobo, a pirate and a ghost. What will Jack think? As much as Bob may explain “it is just for the kids,” Jack is actually at liberty to expound the significance of the influences Bob is exposing his children to. This is the reverse to evangelism since Bob wanted the children to have “fun.” If Jack is a thinking man, he will quickly see the hypocrisy in Bob’s involvement with Halloween as a professing “holy” Christian, one who says he desires to follow Christ.<br /><br /> The previous situation may even escalate to a greater level. Bob may tell Jack that he is going to his church’s Fall Festival held as an alternative to Halloween. Why do Christians need alternatives to pagan festivals? What is this? What do they think they are missing by not worshipping all that is cold, dark and dead? Why are they out to redeem the unredeemable? The Fall Festival is supposed to replace Halloween by taking a day surrounded by demonic influences, and regress nostalgically to the fall festivals of the Druids. The Druids were engaged in many of the same ideas of celebrating fall as the Fall Festival purports. Does this make sense? The only difference in its outward manifestation is that the Druids sacrificed animals and humans while worshipping a pagan idol, and the realm of nature, where Christians are having “fun” (not worship) around a Fall Festival they are trying to reclaim back for God. When was God ever in dire need of reclaiming pagan influences, or demonic worship back to Himself? The Bible speaks vehemently against the practices to do away with them, not reclaim them. There is nothing inherently good in them to reclaim! “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” (Ephesians 6:10–12) Where is the voice of reclamation here? The Scriptures tell us to fight against the wiles of the devil (and principally that means in every way). Opening ourselves up to the spiritual warfare of the malicious devil by candidly partaking in a day which has its roots in the person and work of the devil cannot be accepted by the Christian who is reading their Bible. God exhorts us vehemently, “Learn not the way of the heathen (Jeremiah 10:2).” Paul exhorts us in another context that “…I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils (1 Cor. 10:20).” Why would we want to? Rather, “Submit yourself to God, Resist the devil, and he will flee from you (James 4:7).” Resist him! Do not make him attractive by decorating the sanctuary of God with leaves and bushels of hay and dressing up the children as clowns or cowboys.<br /><br /> The unregenerate and reprobate are attracted to the macabre. The Christian should never be attracted to such filth. When the book of Philippians exhorts the Christian to think about that which is lovely, noble, etc., the devil exhorts the lost to think on that which is ghastly, gruesome, horrific, grisly, chilling, morbid, and down-right disgusting. Why is the populous at large so enamored with the horror movies of today? The answer is actually quite easy: they are servants of sin, and sons of the devil. God has given them over to a debased mind that they would not do that which is fitting. You would be appalled at me if I documented the sexually deviant and gruesome details of the worship of the Druids, or of witches, or of Satanists even in our own day. You would be repulsed and sickened. But these people love Halloween, and mark it as a special day. The Christian ought never to do this.<br /><br /> We are to be separate from the darkness of the world. Such things should not attract us. If they do, then there is something dreadfully wrong with our Christianity, or our misguided interpretation of the Bible. Why not witness to those who participate in Halloween before Halloween, or on the day after Halloween? Why not witness in protest of the day by removing your child from the school’s Halloween party? Why not be true light in a dark world, not a confusion to them!<br /><br /> The Bible is explicit in that it commands us to be sons and daughters of light, those opposed to darkness. John 12:46, “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” John 8:12, “Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.” John 3:19-21, “And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.” Romans 13:12 “The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.” 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” 1 Peter 2:9-12, “But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light: which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.” 1 Corinthians 10:18-22, “Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? What say I then? That the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things that the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?” <br /><br /> The Bible calls men wicked and evil who partake and relate to such abominations as Halloween. Manasseh, one of the most wicked kings of Israel, did evil in the sight of the Lord. “…He observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards (2 Chronicles 33:6).” The word “dealt” in Hebrew is “mar’arab” which means “setting place.” Where one would sit down and discourse with another, or come into relationship with another. It is the point of interaction. What is the point of interaction with those who come into contact with the principles of Halloween? The Ephesians who were converted burned their books of magic – they wholly gave them up. They did not desire a continued relationship with darkness since they knew that had been delivered from the dominion of darkness. You cannot sit in the foyer of the devil’s castle and say you are not visiting his home.<br /><br /> What, then, must the Christian do? I believe Halloween and all its darkness is biblically condemned. The Christian ought never to partake in it. However, there is an alternative. I can hear you now, “Wait! Wait! You said no alternatives two pages ago!” No, this is not what I mean as an alternative. I am speaking in the scope of the entire paper. I do not mean that we should substitute Halloween for something else. No, not that at all. Rather, we must renew our thinking to disregard Halloween all together, and hold steadfastly to a real Protestant watershed event in the history of the church. The Reformation is something we should have known about long before Halloween ever came into the American picture.<br /><br /> The Devil is constantly involved in taking the believer’s eyes off of what his eyes should be on – the truth of Christ’s grace. Halloween is a macabre sort of “fun” to our fallen natures, and we desire to involve ourselves with all that is cold, dark and dead. But what we should be setting our eyes on are those things relating to, and surrounding, the Gospel and the grace of God. “Coincidentally,” (providentially!) the full birth of the Reformation was on October 31st and then flamed on November 1st. After the Roman Catholic church had been influenced by these pagan days and claimed them as “All Saint’s Day,” they had special vigils in church for that special occasion of remembering the long departed saints who had gone before. Martin Luther, an Augustinian monk who was wrestling with the grace of God, placed in order a set of propositions against the tyranny of the Roman Catholic church and their misconceptions about grace. Luther wrote out 95 theses on a large parchment, in Latin, and hung them on the door of Wittenberg’s chapel on October 31, 1517, where he knew the priests and monks would see them the next day during church service. The nailing of his thesis on the door of the chapel sparked a great anger between the Roman Catholic Church and the rising questions of Luther. Ultimately, the Protestant (protesting) church came to light, and the once hidden Gospel under the darkness of a Roman Catholic cloak, was in full glory. This is a watershed point in the history of the church. Any Christian who acknowledges the grace of God should be ashamed of their ignorance of this. They cannot ignore it. Many churches set specific events surrounding this time at church and in the homes of family to commemorate the time when God providentially and sovereignly poured out His grace on men like Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Latimer, Cranmer, and others. Reading selected passages from history, playing games surrounding the Reformation, and like ideas concerning grace are often inaugurated. At that time grace was seen for what it truly is – sovereign grace. Here is our joy in the Gospel. The Protestant Church ought to be celebrating Reformation Day, not Halloween. Halloween should be detestable, and the reality of Reformation should be sweet to the Christian. The Reformation is a holy convocation of God’s grace realized in the lives of the regenerate. Do not trade Halloween for the Reformation, simply realize that October 31st is the day of the Reformation which is commemorated. It is mutually exclusive to the pagan holy day of All Hallow’s Eve, or Halloween.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Might we be exhorted?<br />“Learn not the way of the heathen.”<br />Jeremiah 10:2<br /><br /><br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br /> Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/">www.apuritansmind.com</a> and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. Also in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and a new book that will be first in a series called “The Writings of A Puritan’s Mind” which will be a compilation of Puritan sermons not yet published. Puritan Publications has already released its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/">www.apuritansmind.com</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-54945014159904450302007-09-24T07:25:00.000-04:002007-10-03T04:27:33.271-04:00Future Trends Every Pastor Should KnowGood Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />The Christian Post of Nashville had an article encouraging change in the church, for the better, or so they think. It covered points that pastors need to know in order to enlarge their borders, and gather more people into the church. Pastors, if one could call them that, of “Synergize! Pastors Conference” where 35 renowned leaders will teach synergistic strategies to help pastors build their church and reach the unchurched, said there are four points that pastors of today need to understand.<br /><br />First, they say, one must be sensitive to how people are marketing through the internet. Keeping your church, and your eye on worldwide fame based on something as simple as blogging, is a key to church growth.<br /><br />Second, the "well curve" replaces the "bell curve." Take extremes and unite them together ecumenically. Ecumenicalism builds big churches.<br /><br />Third, epic rules. Leonard Sweet, one of the speaking “pastors” at this conference wrote a book called “The Gospel According to Starbucks.” This futurist calls the church to master the "EPIC" living that Starbucks has mastered. EPIC stands for Experience, Participation, "Images that throb with meaning," and Connection. In other words, follow the marketed strategy of the world’s most popular and expanding companies. That way, the church will grow. "The culture helps the church become more of an epic community," he said.<br /><br />Fourth, everything in this culture is becoming more digitized. As a result of the Internet being the new "skin" for the world, everything is becoming decentralized and some, hyper-centralized. "If you digitize, you decentralize." Community marketing in this way brings bigger groups together.<br /><br />This is all interesting to me. There is no mention of Rahab the harlot and her family who, when the people of God attacked her city, that she alone was the only one of faith. Strange evangelism by God? Or what of Joshua and Caleb who alone has “different spirits” than the rest of the entire nation which rebelled against God? Again, God’s strange evangelism! What of God’s choice of Noah and his eight in the ark? Again, the mass of humanity was destroyed. Where was God’s sense of well curve, or bringing in images that cause people to throb with meaning? Where was God’s sense of decentralization?<br /><br />However, these gurus are not after evangelistic ideas, rather, they are after growth in numbers. You know, those scoreboards in your lobby that tell you how many people came to Sunday School today, or were at your service? They want to see those numbers grow big so that you too can install a Starbucks in the foyer of your church.<br /><br />And what of Jesus? Christ did not decentralize, instead He particularized. The Gospel weeded out the difference between the Apostles and the Temple Priests. He did not come to join the church together, but to divide the sheep from the goats and the wheat from the chaff. It seems Jesus did not have the same message or mindset that these marketers of the church have today. Jesus, the Great Bishop and Shepherd of Souls, did not have the internet, or structuralized EPIC ideas to incorporate. Rather, the Gospel alone was preached, and that Gospel was “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” Jesus’ exclusivism, and non-centralization in His preaching the Kingdom is the exact opposite message of the New Age preaching gurus that want to copy the globalization market of ad campaigns that turn the church into a CEO’s arena.<br /><br />What are you looking for pastor? Faithfulness to God or faithlessness to attract the world? Oh, with money, anything to attract people is easy. I mean, have a bake sale. People will come. Give them something to watch, give them something to do, give them some way to feel special and you will draw thousands. Give them the Gospel, as Jesus did, and you give them an excuse to go down the street to another church that more suits their needs. “This is hard teaching, who can accept it?” That is what Jesus heard.<br /><br />The New Age preaching gurus want you to think that going into the temple and setting up a booth next to the money lenders is a good idea. That way you can win them over. Market like they market. But instead, be like Jesus Christ, who, in opposition to that mindset, went in and overturned their tables.<br /><br />But you ask, who will remain in the church? If we only preach the Gospel, is the Gospel enough?” The Gospel has always been enough. It was enough for God, enough for Christ, and it should be enough for you. God is not interested in numbers, rather, He is interested only in His people coming to faith. He is not interested in four points to a big building, rather, He is interested in whether or not pastors that HE sends trust Him enough to preach His Gospel.<br /><br /> This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /> <br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a> and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. Also in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and a new book that will be first in a series called “The Writings of A Puritan’s Mind” which will be a compilation of Puritan sermons not yet published. Puritan Publications has already released its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-64267774617520418812007-09-16T22:23:00.000-04:002007-09-16T22:27:32.096-04:00Feeling Traditional?<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />How do you feel about worship? How do you feel about a traditional worship service over a contemporary worship service? How do you feel about using musical instruments in worship? How do you feel about singing contemporary praise songs instead of hymns? How do you feel about choirs?<br /><br />Well, it really doesn’t matter how you feel; but it does matter what the Word of God says.<br /><br />On Sept. 14, 2007, 4:40PM, a new article was published by Charles Ward in Houston Chronicle that headlined, “A sacred tie that binds: Traditional music and liturgy link worshippers with church history.”<br /><br />Ward says, and I quote, “For many people, traditional church services mean an awe-inspiring building, time-honored liturgy, great hymns, stirring choral works and grand organ music.” He then says, quote, “Joining in Hark the Herald Angels Sing at a Christmas Eve candlelight service, hearing Handel's Hallelujah Chorus at Easter or being sent triumphantly away from church by Widor's Toccata for organ adds a dimension to worship that words alone can't provide.”<br /><br />Unfortunately, those attending services outlined in this way have a deep seated sense of exactly what Ward is trying to relay. There is something about externals that demonstrate how people internally feel, or even become enamored, with the setting of a traditional service.<br /><br />Ward quotes Russell E. Schulz, associate professor of church music at Austin's Episcopal Theological Seminary of the Southwest, where he says, “It connects us with each other, our past, our forebears — and we believe it connects us with God. We don't know how it works, but we've all experienced it.”<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is also a truism surrounding people who have not spent much time in the Word of God, and instead determine the validity of their experience by their feelings in church. Listener, think of this – you walk into a white washed room, four walls and nothing else, and are expected to worship God singing only the psalms. Or, picture going into King’s College Chapel in England, and standing in one of the most elaborate churches on the planet, surrounded by exquisite architecture, and partaking of the traditional service that Ward outlines. Would you not be moved more in the latter than the former?<br /><br />However, this presses us to consider what our authority is – the Word of God, which alone should dictate the manner in which sinners approach God, or our own feelings because of our heightened senses.<br /><br />Certainly, our senses and emotions should be fully engaged in worship. God created emotional and sense oriented rational beings. But our senses should be instructed by our rationality as it is instructed by the Word of God.<br /><br />Ward says, “Music reinforces worship. Ideally, the choir director chooses hymns and anthems because their words elaborate the theme of the Sunday.” But what do we do with our feelings and senses if God alone determines the manner in which we are to approach Him, and that both the Bible and church history clearly delineate the removal of instruments and hymns and music associated with that in a service?<br /><br />Ward says, “"Significant events (are) underscored by music, Scripture, colors, banners, candles — all of which help people remember how (the Christian faith) came to be." In other words, such traditional elements to things that churches have done for a relatively short time (only about 200 years) help enhance the experience to those who are less motivated by biblical study and more interested in appeasing their consciences for a weekly church service based on feelings.<br /><br />Ward is right, however, in his final statements and commentary on where worship has evolved during the 200 years that Western Culture has formed worship in the church. He says, “Now, Christianity seems at the far end of the arc where free-spirited populist worship and music dominate.”<br /><br />Interestingly enough, even the true biblical data that Ward himself should confront would swing his ideas further to a man-centered religion, rather than being instructed by the Word of God. Instead, for him, and many Christians, worship is based on feelings. The louder the music, the better the service. The more contemporary, the freer one feels.<br /><br />But is worship supposed to be based on the way one feels? Or it is to be managed and submitted to the Word of God? What did the church do prior to the revivalism of the last 200 years when worship has gone astray? If you don’t know the answer to that question, then you ought to take a moment and study the history of the church. I believe you, the listener, would feel very different about the worship of the church today. I believe you would feel like you have been duped, and I believe you would feel like your feelings have been deceiving you.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – the series on Election and Reprobation has just been completed. Go to <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a> and click on “What’s New?” There you will find information on this 9 part lecture series. Also in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and a new book that will be first in a series called “The Writings of A Puritan’s Mind” which will be a compilation of Puritan sermons not yet published. Puritan Publications has already released its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a>. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-16533018948840268362007-09-03T22:19:00.000-04:002007-09-16T22:23:15.191-04:00Do You Really Know the Gospel?<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />From before time began, God reveals to us in His Word that He is a covenantal God. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties, and in this case, it is the intra-Trinitarian pact that comes to light. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit work covenantally together and as a result, through God’s ordination, He gives us the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But how well do you know the Gospel? Do you believe God’s Gospel? Or do you believe someone else’s? Do you believe the Gospel of Joel Osteen? His is different than the one Billy Graham purported. Do you believe the Gospel of TD Jakes? His is different than Rick Warren. Do you believe John Calvin’s Gospel? His is different than Warren, Osteen Jakes and Graham. Which Gospel do you adhere to? You might, as a keen listener, say you believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But really, how well do you know God’s Gospel?<br /><br />God undoubtedly works covenantally. There are over 400 direct references to God working as a covenantally faithful God. God made a covenant with Adam, and that covenant had as one of its signs, the tree of life: "And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die,’" (Gen. 2:16-17). God made a covenant with Noah, and this covenant had the sign of the rainbow, (Gen. 9:9-17). With Abraham, God also made a covenant. When you, listener, think of God dealing with people like Adam, Noah and Abraham, do you think of the Gospel? Or, like most misinformed Christians, do you think the Gospel of Jesus Christ came much later?<br /><br />The Old Testament makes up more than 2/3rds of the Bible. Most Christians neglect it. They believe, for some strange reason, that the Gospel began in Matthew 1:1 or thereabouts. They do not consider that the Gospel began in Genesis 3:15. The Abrahamic Covenant is called the gospel in Galatians 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations shall be blessed in you.” The Apostle Paul, no doubt, believed the Abrahamic Covenant is still in effect. The Gospel is that all nations will be blessed by God, and that God will be a God to His people and their children. This is called “the gospel” by Paul, and demonstrates very clearly that the Abrahamic covenant is, in reality, this New Covenant made with Jesus Christ. To say the Abrahamic covenant is “Old Testament” stuff, and that it is not currently in effect, is to blatantly contradict what the Apostle Paul teaches when he calls it “The Gospel.”<br /><br />Christians cannot be confused on the Gospel. If they are confused on the Gospel, then they must, in turn, be confused about the manner in which God works. If they are confused in the manner in which God works, then what God have they fabricated? What God do they really serve if not “their own imaginations?”<br /><br />Currently this author is working on a book that will be released in the first quarter of 2008 called, “Believing God’s Gospel.” The Gospel is not something that the church can afford to be confused on. It may be through ignorance, or through poor teaching, but regardless of the cause, God never gives us the right to be wrong about His Gospel.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications has already released its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-81332731614535031592007-08-03T14:58:00.000-04:002007-08-07T02:59:33.012-04:00How Much Do You Love Jesus?Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />How do you know you love Jesus much? Anyone who loves God desires his presence. Lovers cannot be long apart; they soon have their fits of desire to be together because they, even on a base level, cannot see, feel or touch their lover. What of the soul? A soul deeply in love with God desires the enjoyment of Him in His worship, in His Word, in prayer, and in His instituted sacraments. David was ready to faint away and die when he did not have a sight of God. "My soul fainteth for God" (Psalm 84:2). When people say, “When will the Lord’s Day be over?" plainly reveal their lack of love to God.<br /><br />Those who love God do not love sin. "You that love the Lord, hate evil" (Psalm 97:10). The love of God, and the love of sin, can no more mix together than iron and clay. Every sin that is loved strikes at the being of God; but he who loves God, has a hatred of sin. The one who would break up two true lovers is a hateful person. God and the believing soul are two lovers; sin parts between them, therefore the soul is unmovably set against it. By this test your love to God. How could Delilah say she loved Samson, when she entertained correspondence with the Philistines, who were his mortal enemy?<br /><br />He who loves God is not in love with anything else very much. His love is very cold to worldly things. His love to God moves swiftly, as the sun in the sky; to the world it moves slowly, as time passes slowly on watch. If one loves the world, such a love rips out the heart of religion; it chokes good affections, as earth puts out fire. The world was a dead thing to Paul. "I am crucified to the world, and the world is crucified to me" (Gal. 6:14). In Paul we may see both the picture and pattern of a mortified man. The one that loves God uses the world but chooses God. The world engages him, but God delights and satisfies him. He says as David, "God my exceeding joy," the gladness or cream of my joy (Psalm 43:4).<br /><br />The one who loves God cannot live without Christ. Things we love we cannot be without. A man can do without music or flowers, but not food; so a soul deeply in love with God looks upon himself as being totally undone without Him. "Hide not thy face from me, lest I be like them that go down into the pit" (Psalm 143:7). I want the Sun of Righteousness; I enjoy the sweet presence of my God. Is God our chief good? If He is then we cannot live without Him. Those who have no love to God can do well enough without Him! Let them have their beer and movies, and you will never hear them complain that they lack God.<br /><br />The one who loves God will do anything to get Him. What great pain the store owner takes, what hazards he must face, to have a rich return from all his labor overseas in buying and selling! Jacob loved Rachel, and he could endure the heat by day, and the frost by night, that he might enjoy her. A soul that loves God will take any pains for the fruition of Him. "My soul follows hard after God" (Psalm 63:8). Love is the weight which sets the clock going. It is much in prayer, weeping for sin, fasting; it strives as in agony that he may obtain Christ whom his soul loves. Plutarch reports of the Gauls, an ancient people of France, that after they had tasted the sweet wine of Italy, they never rested till they had arrived at that country.<br /><br />The one who is in love with Jesus, never rests till he has a part in Him. "I sought him whom my soul loveth" (Song of Sol. 3:2). How can they say they love God, who are not industrious in the use of means to obtain Him? "A slothful man hides his hand in his bosom" (Pro. 19:24). He is not in agony, but lethargy. If Christ and salvation would drop like a ripe fig into his mouth, he would be content to have it; but he is lazy and slothful to put himself to too much trouble to do it on his own. Does he love his friend, who will not go on a journey to see him?<br /><br />He who loves God prefers him before all his worldly good, and even his life. Before estate—"For whom I have suffered the loss of all things" (Phil. 3:8). Who that loves a rich jewel would not part with a flower for it? Galeacius, marcus of Vico, parted with a fair estate to enjoy God in His pure ordinances. When a Jesuit persuaded him to return to his popish religion in Italy, promising him a large sum of money, he said: "Let their money perish with them who esteem all the gold in the world worth one day's communion with Jesus Christ and his Holy Spirit." And what about desiring God before your own life?—"They loved not their lives to the death" (Rev. 12:11). Love to God carries the soul above the love of life and the fear of death.<br /><br />He who loves God loves the saints (1 John 5:1). To love a man for his grace and the more we see of God in him, the more we love him, that is an infallible sign of love to God. The wicked pretend to love God, but hate and persecute His image, who are the saints of God. Does he love his prince who abuses his statue, or tears down his picture? They seem indeed to show great reverence to saints departed; they have great reverence for Saint Paul, and Saint Stephen, and Saint Luke; they canonize dead saints, but persecute living saints; and do they love God? Can you imagine that a person loves God who hates God’s children because they are like God? If Christ were alive again, He would not escape a second persecution.<br /><br />If we love God we cannot but be fearful of dishonoring him, just as the great love a child has for his father the more he is afraid to displease him, and they weep and mourn when they have offended him. "Peter went out and wept bitterly" (Matt. 26:75). Peter might as well have thought that Christ dearly loved him when He took him up to the mount where He was transfigured, and showed him the glory of heaven in a vision. It is unthinkable then, that Peter should deny Christ after he had received such wonderful tokens of Christ’s love, and so, all this broke Peter’s heart with grief. "He wept bitterly." Are our eyes dropping tears of grief for sin against God? It is a wonderful evidence of our love to God if we do, and we shall find mercy in such acts. "He shows mercy to thousands of them that love Him."<br /><br />With all that said, let us be lovers of God. We love our food, and should we not love Him that gives it? All the joy we hope for in heaven is in God; and shall not He who shall be our joy then, be our love now? It is a saying of Augustine, “Is it not punishment enough Lord, not to love thee?” And again Augustine says, “I would hate my own soul if I did not find it loving God.” And so, how much love do you have for King Jesus?<br /><br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications is almost ready to release its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit www.apuritansmind.com.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-43762701762687380262007-05-29T04:15:00.000-04:002007-05-29T04:16:03.270-04:00The Lord's Supper Part II - Calvin's View<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />The Reformed church of yesteryear had a more biblically rich, complex and theologically accurate view of the Lord’s Supper than 99% of those claiming the Reformed banner today. Not only did the magisterial Reformers take time in sermons, tracts, commentaries and writings on the subject of the Lord’s Supper, but because of their break with Roman Catholicism’s doctrine of transubstantiation, they had to biblically and solidly prove that their position was not only superior, but more biblically accurate. They did this easily, but extensively.<br /><br />Most of the 21st century church does not adhere to Calvin’s view, or the Reformed view, of the Lord’s Supper. Instead, they have adopted the counter Reformation view of Ulrich Zwingli, who was not only opposed by Luther and Melancthon, but also Calvin and those that followed Reformed Doctrine in Geneva.<br /><br />Later, we will discuss Zwingli’s view, here, we look at Calvin’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper which was highly influenced by Augustine.<br /><br />Here is what Calvin taught about the Lord’s Supper –<br /><br />Calvin said that a sacrament is an outward sign that seals on our consciences the promise of God and His good will to us in the Gospel. It is a visible sign of a sacred thing, and a form of invisible grace. It is the visible words of God. The sacraments bring the clearest promises; and they have this characteristic over and above the word because they represent them for us as painted in a picture from life.<br /><br />Sacraments are signs of God’s covenants. They are tokens of the covenant. They are exercises which make us more certain of the trustworthiness of God’s word.<br /><br />They are only positively efficacious for us when we partake of them by regenerating grace. They are negatively efficacious for those who partake unworthily, calling down the curses of the covenant for covenant breakers. They are instruments of God and are only useful insofar as God uses them as instruments.<br /><br />The sacraments, in and of themselves, do not impart grace. Instead, like the word of God, they present Christ to us. In the elect alone the sacraments effect what they represent. We receive their reception of God’s grace as we partake of them in faith. If one receives the sacrament carnally, the sacrament does not cease to be spiritual, but it is not so for them. God truly executes whatever He promises and represents in signs.<br /><br />The Supper, then, extends to us the body of Christ which is in heaven. Union with Christ is crucial to Calvin’s understanding of the Supper. Christ is the life-giving bread that has come down from heaven and upon which our souls feed unto true blessedness (John 6:55). Christ is invisible food and invisible drink for us to feed upon. We are members of His flesh and bones, and the bond of this union is the Spirit of Christ.<br /><br />Christ is present in the Supper by way of the sign of the bread and wine. The name of the thing, that is the body and blood of Christ, is transferred to the thing signified. These signs presuppose the presence of Christ and manifests that presence via those signs. They are real grace signified and sealing real things exemplified in their signs of grace. Christ said, “This is my body…” Calvin concurs. But he asks, “In what sense?” The expression is figurative. The bread is Christ’s body, and the wine is His blood. But these elements hold forth Christ to us, which demonstrate the truth of the reality for those who partake by faith. The reality is conjoined with the sign. Calvin rightly says that we do not less truly become participants in Christ’s body in respect of spiritual efficacy, than we partake of the bread. Calvin says, “In His sacred Supper he bids me take, eat, and drink His body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I do not doubt that he himself truly presents them, and that I receive them.” (Institutes 4:17.10)<br /><br />What is Calvin saying in all this? Simply, let us use a modern marvel of technological wonder to explain what Calvin is saying about the Supper. It is as simple as a cell phone. When you call someone, you enter into your contacts list that list the person’s name and number. There you have a visible representation of ideas formed in your mind about that person. When I see the name “Mr. Black”, I have all sorts of information running in my mind about who “Mr. Black” is. I can tell you that I have never met Mr. Black face to face. I have never sat with him at dinner. But I have, countless times, emailed Mr. Black about all sorts of things concerning theological issues and publishing books. But I have never met Mr. Black. I am sure that if I sat down with Mr. Black and talked with him face to face, the experience of that would be far more satisfying than simply seeing him in my cell phone, or emailing him, or even talking with him by phone. My experience with him is limited to WORDS. In the same way, the cell phone is much like the sacrament that demonstrates to us the visibility of the Word of God, and Christ. Christ, though, is in heaven. However, through the cell phone of the sacrament the conduit, which is the Spirit, unites us with Jesus Christ, really and truly, but not as fully as “face to face.” For now, we will have to be satisfied with a cell phone conversation of His real presence with us, in this case through the bread and wine that truly connect us to Him, and we will long for the day that those spiritual sacraments, those spiritual cell phones are done away with, and we will sit down with the Lord in the fullness of His glory.<br /><br />Is this not better and more theologically rich than just thinking of the Lord’s Supper as some memorial service with no connection to Christ? Truly, Calvin’s doctrine, the Reformed Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was exceedingly rich, and more importantly, biblically consistent with the Bible’s means of grace for us. More later…<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications is almost ready to release its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-73204933593264466012007-05-22T04:23:00.000-04:002007-05-29T04:24:12.465-04:00The Lord's Supper Part I<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />Through the history of the church, one of the most written about topics is the Lord’s Supper. In today’s church, one of the least written about or preached about topics is the Lord’s Supper. No doubt, as a result, there is a huge amount of misinformation that rests on the shoulders of ignorance. It is my intention over the next few podcasts to give you, the listener, some theological sound-bytes to think about concerning the Lord’s Supper.<br /><br />The event that sparked this series was the blatant disregard of a church that I visited for following God’s prescription of the Supper and instead, followed a Romanist interpretation of its practical mode. It was not that this church changed the meaning behind the Supper, although one wonders what exactly they teach concerning it, but rather, that the manner in which they distributed the elements was not only wrong, but followed the Romanist view of dipping the bread into the wine and eating it, which is called intinction. Seeing a professing Christian church follow the Romanist intinction for the sake of expediency was disheartening to the say the least. In other words, it was simply quicker and easier to have people come up and take the bread and dip it in the grape juice (not the wine) was quicker than having to pass it out. On the same note, knowing that most of the Christian church today has a poor or theologically bankrupt view of the Supper, pressed me to consider certain aspects of the Lord’s Institution that no Christian should be without.<br /><br />First, we look at Old Testament Shadows of the Lord’s Supper. In order to really understand the New Testament witness of the Supper, one must look to the Old Testament to gain a full theological understanding of what the Supper means. Remember, the Bible of the Lord Jesus Himself, and the Bible of the Apostles, was the Hebrew Scriptures. There is a definitive and glaring example of the commonness and communion of our father Abraham with the High Priest, Melchizedek in Genesis 14:18, “And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. (He was priest of God Most High.)” It is not a mistake that bread and wine were brought. Not bread and grape juice, but bread and wine. From the very beginning, God sets the standard, and the use of wine through the Bible as a gift of God to His people is consistent. We’ll get into the “grape juice” change that the church has placed on the sacrament at a later time. Then we have the Passover lamb as the sacrifice given in Exodus 12:27 and 34:25. Christ, our Passover, is seen in the light of the Lord’s Supper as a result of fully analogizing the Passover Lamb of the Old Testament. Such a sacrifice was given as a memorial, Exodus 12:14. “This day shall be for you a memorial day…” Not a memorial meal, but a memorial day. “…and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations, as a statute forever, you shall keep it as a feast.” Passover was a communal act of worship. The blood of the Passover lamb demonstrates those in covenant with God in contrast to those outside God’s covenant. The Passover involves sacrifice.<br /><br />Redemption is remembered. But it is not only a past act of God that is remembered, but a future one as well. There is also the manna from heaven; the bread of God, as seen in Exodus 16. God gives His people the bread that sustains them.<br /><br />There is also the blood of the covenant. In Exodus 24:1-11 the ratification of the covenant between God and the Israelites was the blood of the sacrifice meal, the blood of a sacrifice, which was eaten in the presence of God. Moses declared that blood to be the blood of the covenant. The sacrifices of the old covenant were shadows that demonstrated the sanctification of the people. Without the proper sacrifice, the people would be left under their sin. In Malachi 1:10 God tells the people that it would be better for the church to close down, than to offer sacrifices that were not pure.<br /><br />In the same way, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ demonstrates a fulfillment of covenant promises in the shadows of the temple and sacrificial system God endured until the proper time. The Lord’s Supper, like the Passover, is a sacrificial meal. The blood distinguished in the Lord’s Supper, is that of Christ for His people and distinguishes those in covenant with God with those outside His covenant. Like the manna which provided for the needs of the people, the Supper demonstrates that God has provided everything needful in Jesus Christ as the bread of heaven. Jesus is the true bread. The Lord’s Supper is a ceremonial meal that seals and ratifies the covenant Christ made for His people. We eat of His flesh and drink of His blood. He is our peace offering, our offering of thanks that demonstrates the fulfillment of all things needful for salvation for all those for whom Christ died.<br /><br />Without understanding the Old Covenant and the shadows that throughout the Scriptures, running into the New Testament to have a comprehensive view of the Supper will be in vain. Paul says Christ is our Passover. Jesus says He is the manna from heaven. Hebrews says Christ fulfilled everything that needed to in the line of Melchizedek – that Melchizedek of Genesis 14 offering up a communion, a fellowship, of bread and wine. More later…<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications is almost ready to release its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit www.apuritansmind.com. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-52603563807836420482007-05-07T01:12:00.000-04:002007-05-21T01:13:10.162-04:00Hearing the Shepherd's Voice<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />It’s not enough to simply hear God’s voice, but action must follow. Do you hear God’s voice? Now, I don’t mean the absurd antics of the charismatic movement with their heretical and unbiblical “God told me to tell you this today” paranoia. We are not talking about the deviant theology built upon the ridiculous notion that God is NOT done speaking, and that more revelation comes to each individual day by day. Funny, the Bible doesn’t seem to be growing into new chapters or books. Rather, the 66 books are sufficient, and those lunatics need to wake up to the fact that God HAS SPOKEN.<br /><br />However, in the Word of God once delivered to the saints, we find Jesus saying in John 10:25-27, “Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.”<br /><br />Jesus says His sheep hear Him. One would call into question the validity of a true shepherd who spoke to his sheep, or signaled his sheep and found them simply standing there as the shepherd walked off. If the shepherd called his sheep, and those sheep know that shepherd, the end result would not simply be that the sheep heard the shepherd, but that as a result of hearing, they followed him. Jesus says that His sheep know His voice – which is the Word of God – that HE knows them – which is their utter salvation (that God knows them intimately)– and that as a result of hearing His voice in the Word, and being regenerated or known by Him savingly, that they follow Him. In other words, sheep that are saved who hear the voice of the Shepherd will follow the Shepherd every time His voice is heard. They hear and follow. They do not hear, and ponder and stand docile.<br /><br />So what is wrong with the professing Christian church today? Theology is more colored in today’s church than the finest rainbow after a spring shower. There is as much ecleticity in theology today as it was in the fullness of time when the Shepherd actually came. Why is it that the 21st century church seems to go on its merry way without really hearing the voice of the Shepherd, or simply ignoring His voice. Can God’s sheep really hear the Shepherd’s voice and ignore it?<br /><br />Let me give you a hypothetical for-instance. Let us imagine that the Bible said all Bibles should have a puce colored leather cover on them. I know it’s a stretch, but stay with me for a moment. Let’s say that God’s word, His voice, the voice of Shepherd, said, that all Bibles should have a puce colored leather cover on them. Let’s say that the church, for 1800 years since Christ’s ascension into heaven followed that command, and heard the Shepherd’s voice, and acted on it. In other words, the regular course of action that the church has always taken collectively throughout the ages is that they had puce colored leather covers on their bibles. Then let’s say that you walk into any professing Christian church today and found a host of various colored bibles because, as the logic would go, sheep need to be happy, and color makes them happy. They have, for all intents and purposes claimed to hear the Shepherd’s voice, but are ignorant concerning God’s prescription, His Voice, concerning colored covers. Are they, then, really hearing the Shepherd’s voice? Or are they simply deceiving themselves?<br /><br />It would seem strange to have a group of sheep simply stand docile as the Shepherd called them, commanded them to follow Him and His will, and yet, they stood ignorantly there with cotton in their ears. Are they really the Shepherd’s sheep?<br /><br />This last century has been the most tumultuous century of theological change ever in the history of the church. In other words, this century has demonstrated the most widespread disease of lethargy concerning being given a command by the voice of the Shepherd, and having the church simply ignore it. It has ranged from everything from God’s prescription of worship, to what to sing, to whether or not musical instruments should or should not be used, to preaching the Word exegetically or not, to the validity of the Word of God itself as being infallible and inerrant, to ecclesiastical issues concerning members of churches or to have membership at all, to the ordination of women in offices, to various forms of government, to everything under the theological sun.<br /><br />How is it in 400 years that the church could have gone from listening to the Shepherd’s voice in coming together to support documents like the Westminster Confession, to the barrage of various denominations or lack thereof in the scourge of independency in the church today and the dissolution of unity in the most important theological matters in the church? How is that possible?<br /><br />I’ll tell you how – people who call themselves Christians are simply professing that they are and do not hear the Shepherd’s voice. For if they did hear the Shepherd’s voice, they would heed God’s Word in following, at least, the very basics of what the Shepherd desires. They would, as God said in Jeremiah 6:16, “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.” They would ask for the ancient paths – the old news that is good news. They would not be looking for something new or novel. They would not be basing their entire church around what is new or novel. And yet, they thrive on that which is new or novel because they do not even know what the old paths look like, much less desire them. This shows the continual regression of heeding the truth, as God also said, in that same passage - “But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'”<br /><br />Take up the Westminster Confession, read through it, see if you agree or disagree with its basic nature. See if you are a “new fangled” Christian or you desire the old paths.<br /><br />Do you really hear the Shepherd’s voice? Or are you more concerned with the status quo? Does your church pastor heed the Shepherd’s voice or is he compromising in the truth? Look around professing Christian. Are you standing still with a bunch of other docile sheep? If you are, then the Shepherd who has already called is long since gone. You are all left to yourselves because you have not heard His voice, and you are not following Him.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. Puritan Publications is almost ready to release its latest book, “A Heart for Reformation” which covers how every Christian should desire true biblical reformation. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-34009826616607427372007-03-11T21:10:00.001-04:002007-03-11T21:12:04.720-04:00Gospel Content<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />“Jesus is coming soon.” This was the information given on a sign that women held in the middle of the street on Sunday afternoon. I applaud her desire to glorify the living Christ, and I applaud her desire to, what modern Christians refer to as “evangelism.” However, I do not applaud her Gospel content. Men cannot be saved without knowledge. How can men enter the Kingdom of God by anything but “spiritual perceptions” of the truth? (John 3:3) This woman was holding a sign up devoid of meaning. It could be that the sign meant something to her. But the most recent traveler from China may have never heard about “Jesus”, or even about God. This sign was more akin to a weak attempt at general revelation, rather than a biblical picture of special revelation. It had no substance to it.<br /><br />General Revelation will only make men sensible of their creatureliness and will, in cases when men actually sit down and think through metaphysics, supply them with the information that God is the Judge of universe and they are found wanting because they are not perfect. It will not, however, supply them with a Savior; only the possibility or need of one. Special Revelation supplies them with the distinct and purposeful plan of God, and the ultimate fulfillment of that plan in the Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Only special Revelation is adequate to free men from spiritual bondage. Romans 8:15 says, “For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father.”” The Spirit of Adoption refers to the application of the work of Jesus Christ on the souls of His elect through the power of the Spirit who ministers the reality of that adoption to us. A clear statement of this contrast between general and special revelation can be seen in the first line of The Westminster Confession on the Holy Scriptures, “Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.” (Rom. 1:19-20; 1:32-2:1; 2:14-15; Psa. 19:1-4)<br /><br />Let me set the stage for an inquiry here. Let us say you are a minister of the Gospel and desire to preach to the “Hitchiwatchi” Indians in the Amazon jungle. These people have been unaffected by technology and have, for all intents and purposes, been unaffected in the manner in which they have lived for over 1000 years. They are lost, depraved souls who need the Gospel preached to them. Let us imagine that by some “providential appointment” you gain a crude understanding of their pictorial writings. Let us imagine you learn their language. Let us imagine you have funding for the trip out there, and to stay among them for a whole year. All of the typical side issues are dealt with and you come face to face with the Hitchiwacthi Indians. What do you say to them? What is the Gospel message you will bring to them? What would you not say to them? Would you simply hold up a sign that says “Jesus is coming soon?”<br /><br />Here you are ready to preach to the Hitchiwatchi Indians. Where do you open your Bible? Let us imagine you turn to Genesis 11:29, where the text reads, “And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.” Now, it is with all certainly that this passage is the Word of God. It is inspired, and it is without error. However, it is not the Gospel. There are no Gospel elements to this portion of Scripture. The preacher of God would not be able to stand on top of a log and preach this verse to the Hitchiwatchi Indians expecting them to come to faith in believing on Jesus Christ the Son of God. Let us imagine that you as the preacher then decided this text was not working after reading it, so you turned to 1 Chronicles 7:1 and read, “Now the sons of Issachar were, Tola, and Puah, Jashub, and Shimron, four.” Unfortunately, the Hitchiwatchi Indians simply look on with a puzzled face. In knowing that these people still seemed a bit disoriented by your choice of texts, you turn to Esther 5:1-5 and read it. “Now it happened on the third day that Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the king's palace, across from the king's house, while the king sat on his royal throne in the royal house, facing the entrance of the house. So it was, when the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, that she found favor in his sight, and the king held out to Esther the golden scepter that was in his hand. Then Esther went near and touched the top of the scepter. And the king said to her, "What do you wish, Queen Esther? What is your request? It shall be given to you -- up to half the kingdom!" So Esther answered, "If it pleases the king, let the king and Haman come today to the banquet that I have prepared for him." Then the king said, "Bring Haman quickly, that he may do as Esther has said." So the king and Haman went to the banquet that Esther had prepared.” It is a nice little passage and the Hitchiwatchi Indians seem to like the idea of a king and queen, even eating at a banquet. But again, there is no Gospel message here. In desperation you turn to the New Testament hoping you will have better “luck” there. You turn to the historical narrative of Acts 28:3-6 where Luke records for us, “But when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks and laid them on the fire, a viper came out because of the heat, and fastened on his hand. So when the natives saw the creature hanging from his hand, they said to one another, "No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he has escaped the sea, yet justice does not allow to live." But he shook off the creature into the fire and suffered no harm. However, they were expecting that he would swell up or suddenly fall down dead. But after they had looked for a long time and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds and said that he was a god.” The Indians seem to respond in amazement. They know of the sting of vipers, snakes, asps, and the like. Could it be that the thunder god they worship in their back tent could be this “Paul” of the text? Should they bow down and pray to Paul? In seeing their amazement, you quickly turn back to the Gospels to John 11:35. “Jesus wept.” The Hitchiwatchi Indians stop shuffling. Jesus is said to have wept. He cried. But who is he? No mention of how he is related to Abraham. Esther had not mentioned him. Chronicles did not name him. The text from the book of Acts did not say anything about him – there was just a “Paul” in that text. So, who is this Jesus? Is it then enough to hold up a sign that says, “Jesus is coming soon?”<br /><br />I hope it is obvious that the good news of God, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is not apparent in any of the texts mentioned. Simply reading those texts would not convert a single soul. The Hitchiwatchi Indians may be wiser to certain portions of the biblical record and the Word of God, but they are not wiser to the Gospel than the day you arrived. Christianity is a rational biblical faith that believes certain propositions of the bible that describe Gospel content – it is not by divine osmosis that the Word of the Gospel is channeled through a few words in a text. The Gospel is much more than that. Holding up a sign that says “Jesus is coming soon” is as biblically effective for the regeneration of a soul as is “Ham and Eggs special $2.99”. And no doubt people will understand the latter far more quickly than the former.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">http://www.apuritansmind.com/</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-87412711363859847392007-02-11T15:28:00.000-05:002007-02-10T04:37:34.307-05:00False Vows<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647 (the version that should be used) states in chapter 22, section 1, “A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calleth God to witness what he asserteth or promiseth; and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he sweareth.”<br /><br />Vows or oaths are small covenants in this regard. They are pacts or agreements between parties. Christ asserts that one ought not to make an oath that he cannot keep, or that he swears falsely by, as did the Pharisees. In such cases, it would be better to simply say “yes” or “no.” In that case, it is still much the same outcome – your yes should be yes, and your no should be no. But the Scriptures consistently teach that lawful oaths that are made in the name of God are not only acceptable, but part of religious worship itself.<br /><br />A vow or oath ought to be made with religious care, and it should be performed faithful to one it is made. (Isa 19:21; Psa 61:8; 66:13-14; Eccl 5:4-6.) In this way vows or oaths are not to be made to any creature, but to God alone (Psa 76:11; Jer 44:25-26; Gen 28:20-22; Deut 23:21, 23; 1 Sam 1:11; Psa 50:14; 66:13-14; 132:2-5).<br /><br />When you make a lawful vow, you should never vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty which is commanded in the word of God. Also, you should never vow or make an oath on something that is not in your power to keep. Such unbiblical vows are in respect to things like the Roman Catholic Church vows - monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection. These types of vows are superstitious vows and sinful snares, in which no Christian should become entangled (Num 30:5, 8, 12-13; Mark 6:26; Acts 23:12, 14. Mat 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:2, 9, 23; Eph 4:28; 1 Pet 4:2).<br /><br />Christians, however, make lawful vows when they join a church, or vow to uphold certain doctrines in their life and faith. When those vows are broken, those Christians sin against the one whom those vows were made – which is God most High.<br /><br />Many in the American Church make convenient vows. These vows are akin to the Pharisees and Sadducees and Scribes who vowed when it was convenient for them, or when they gained the respect or admiration of men around them, instead of being in the good graces of God. What happens here is that a professing church member makes a membership vow to a local church that he finds inviting and up to his own standards. They vow to uphold the doctrine of the church, the discipline of the church, and the order of the church. They do this in a solemn assembly where witnesses in the church are present, who have also vowed in like manner. They, in turn, have things in common, or as the biblical idea mandates, fellowship with one another. In being like minded, they rest confident in their vow and oath, for a time, and continue in that church.<br /><br />Then, something dreadful happens. They decide they don’t want to uphold their vow to the church, to its doctrine, to its discipline, because they found some inconvenience that, in their mind, would cancel out their vows that they previously made before God. This is often the case when a church member leaves one church for another on matters that do not surround essential doctrine of the Christian faith and practice. They seem to think that God, then, does not hold them accountable to their vows, and that they can, simply go to another church and make another vow there.<br /><br />This is the scene of American Church hopping. It is the plague of all ecclesiology and order, and it is an affront to the God who disdains the breaking of vows. Even though these people are not serious about the things of God, and even though they treat lightly the things of God, and even though they abuse the church and its fellowship in this way, God does not.<br /><br />God does not take lightly the oath or the vow. God does not, and will not tolerate the breaking of covenant, and the frivolity in which the American church treats church membership in general.<br />God is serious about His church, and holds those who make vows to the letter of them, if they are lawfully invoked. God was serious when He said in Deuteronomy 23:23, “That which has gone from your lips you shall keep and perform, for you voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth.” God was serious when He said in Numbers 30:2, “If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by some agreement, he shall not break his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.” God is serious. Many in the American Church today are not. God says that people in His church that forget their vows, or do not uphold them are fools. He says in Ecclesiastes 5:4, “When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; For He has no pleasure in fools.”<br /><br />James reminds us in James 5:12, “But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes," be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into judgment.” He reminds us that heaven and earth, men and other things are not to be sworn to. Rather, that because we swear to God Himself, our vow should stand. Our “yes” to an oath should be “yes”, and our no, should be no. Anything else is from the evil one, and you will be found a fool before God’s eyes.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.<br /><br />Keep checking back at A Puritan’s Mind – currently in the works is an MP3 series on the Covenant of Grace, and another MP3 series on Election and Predestination. For more on Reformed and Puritan Theology, visit <a href="http://www.apuritansmind.com/" target="_blank">www.apuritansmind.com</a>.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-71886773312879656092007-01-28T18:30:00.000-05:002007-01-28T18:34:28.158-05:00False Teachers are So Humble...<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />False teachers have plagued the church ever since the church has been a church. From the false teaching of Satan in the garden of Eden with Adam and Eve, to Balaam and his attempted cursings against the Israelites, to Hymaneus, Alexander and Philetus who taught that the resurrection has already occurred, and shipwrecked their faith.<br /><br />But it seems that false teachers have a way with people. Of course they do. People would never be swayed by a devil wearing red pajamas and toting a pitchfork. They would not be so stupid as to follow the devil in open array (though some still might.) Rather, false teachers have always had a charisma about them. They were strong leaders and those using persuasive words. They are like the super-apostles that the Apostle Paul had to contend with in his Corinthian correspondence. 2 Corinthians 11:4, “For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted -- you may well put up with it!” Interestingly, these false apostles and false teachers spoke well and won the crowd. Paul himself says 2 Corinthians 11:6, “Even though I am untrained in speech…” False teachers and those spreading lies and deception through demonic doctrines are always persuasive speakers and clever entrepreneurs. Arius, the great heretic of the 4th century, was the originator of Arianism, a heretical Christological teaching which refused to concede the full divinity of Christ. How did he infiltrate the church? He was a great entrepreneur. Arius came up with taking his ideas and put them to songs. Thus hymnody was born in the midst of the people of God where heresies were sung as jingles that could easily be remembered.<br /><br />Not only are false teachers outwardly charismatic, but most of the time, they seem to be brimming with love and compassion toward the people of God, though it be false love, and with great godly morals against the wrong that has been done to them. They are equally “hurt” when their voices and ideas are shot down by godly pastors. They think themselves ill used and often put out the most humble of speeches and letters telling us all how badly they have been abused. This was even the case over the past week on the Reformed Puritanboard. Some Federal Visionists infiltrated the board, and after they had their privileges removed from interacting and no longer had the ability to post their ungodly information, they felt abused for being called out on it. After being called out on their position, they said they were, “publicly defamed” and that their “character and our motives as well as lied about.” They said that they found our behavior “disgraceful, lacking in Christian charity.” They ultimate said that the Reformed Board administrators were “wrong and are in sin”. They ended with “When you are ready to apologize and seek forgiveness from us” we know how to contact them. Such speech seems like the epitome of martyrdom. Such manipulation and craftiness brims over from the pit of hell.<br /><br />But such was the case with the false apostles in the Church at Corinth. Though Paul was not necessarily the greatest of speakers, so we say with him, 2 Corinthians 11:6, “Even though I am untrained in speech, yet I am not in knowledge.<br /><br />Yes, the false teachers and propagators of heretical material and information will always feel abused and ill treated. They will make that known in earnest. They will “sniff sniff” weep and wail at the disgrace shown to them. But really, when one gets down to brass tacks, it’s very simple- they don’t like not getting their own way, and they don’t like it when the truth that sets others free, shackles them in their own schemes and banishes them from amidst the people of God. Humility, at the expense of truth, is the devil’s playground.<br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-61843784761255104492007-01-18T18:24:00.000-05:002007-01-26T18:25:36.457-05:00Our Next Evangelist<div align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.<br /><br />Evangelists. Are they for today? The Reformation and Puritanism were in agreement that Evangelists were an office specific to the time of the early church during the Apostolic Era. They agree that the properties of that office were tied to things that not only included the regular preaching of the word, but also extraordinary gifts that were also tied to the Apostolic era now ceased. As Dr. John Owen a prince among puritans, rightly says of Evangelists, “The evangelists we read of had extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit, without which they could not warrantably undertake their office. That there is no need of their continuance from any work applied unto them.”<br /><br />Does the contemporary church agree?<br /><br />In Newsmax magazine, the December 2006 issue, beginning on page 54, columnist Dave Eberhart asks the question, who is “Our Next Great Evangelist.” As we so hoped that Billy Graham would not only step down, but that his theology would lose its heat as well, no, the devil won’t have that. His son, Franklin Graham is going to take up an iconic center of stage following in the footsteps of his misguided father.<br /><br />The title of the article is “Franklin Graham Takes the Stage.” I agree. Franklin Graham is taking the stage. He is not entering the office of an evangelist, nor of the office of minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. He is, with many other iconic religion people, taking up the spotlight on the stage. Who are these others that he will now share in the spotlight? Eberhart makes list and comments on religious figures such as Pope Benedict 16th, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, Jack Hayford, Benny Hinn, TD Jakes, Joyce Meyer, Kirk Cameron, Bob Coy, Joel Osteen, Luis Palau, Pat Robertson, Tony Evans, Ted Haggard, and Rick Warren. Need I go on? Graham, the dispensational Arminian, who is rescuing Pelagianism from the depth of hell, is rubbing shoulders and borrowing limelight time from heretics of all kinds. Anti-Trinitarians, Modalists, Charismanics, Pelagians, and motivational speakers with New Age advice. And these, yes, are the icons of the American Church.<br /><br />But in a much somber light, the Bible speaks about deceivers who will come in the last days, and deceive many. The people of God, during these last days, stretching from the time of the early church even until now, have seen the ebb and flow of demonic doctrines and things taught by devils sweeping into the church, changing her Gospel, changing her worship, and changing the very essence of theological doctrine surrounding the being of the One True God, Jesus Christ.<br /><br />No, Franklin Graham is not an evangelist, as much as one might say Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen are Christians. Rather, the history of American Enlightenment has followed the pleas of one Charles Finney, of which much of these people have bought their theology, even without knowing it. The old saw dust trail, and the seat of decision, turned Charles Finney, an avowed Pelagian, to be deemed one of the great evangelists of the religious community in the 19th century. So that kind of open air preaching (but preaching of another sort) has labeled such men evangelists.<br /><br />Enter, the Bible. The Bible teaches, as in Jeremiah 3:14-17 “Return, O backsliding children," says the LORD; "for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 "And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. 16 "Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days," says the LORD, "that they will say no more, 'The ark of the covenant of the LORD.' It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore. 17 "At that time Jerusalem shall be called The Throne of the LORD, and all the nations shall be gathered to it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem. No more shall they follow the dictates of their evil hearts.” Shepherds, in contrast to false teachers, explain God’s mind to the people.<br /><br />Let me give you 10 chief heresies:<br />1) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not bind us Christians.<br />2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.<br />3) That there is no original sin.<br />4) That the will of man is still free.<br />5) That the saints may fall totally and finally from grace.<br />6) That Christ died alike for all, yea, that his salvific virtue of His death extends to all the reprobates as well as the elect, yea, to the very devils as well as unto men.<br />7) That Jesus Christ came into the world not for satisfaction, but for publication; not to procure for us and to us the love of God, but only to be a glorious Publisher of the Gospel.<br />8) That God is not displeased at all if His children sin.<br />9) That the doctrine of repentance is a soul destroying doctrine.<br />10) That the souls of men are not immortal but mortal.<br /><br />These could be taken from the sermons of any of those described before in part, if not in full. Be advised. They were taken from "The Nature and Danger of Heresies" by Obadiah Sedgwick in the 17th century. Surely, there is nothing new under the sun.<br /><br />The Apostolic church would never have put up with “evangelists” preaching heresy. Their extraordinary office gave way to the ordinary office of elders and deacons, which now the true church of Jesus Christ thrives under when the true Gospel is preached. No, we don’t have any more evangelists, and Franklin Graham is not the church’s next. Rather, we ought to listen to the God-given elders that preach day in and day out in those churches established by the Authority of Jesus Christ as His ambassadors to the world. Graham, Osteen, Warren, Coy and others can have the limelight. God’s people prefer the pulpit.<br /><br /><br />This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-1166023403017280722006-12-13T10:16:00.000-05:002006-12-13T10:23:23.030-05:00Christmas - Part 1<p align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.</p><p>Christmass - and I mean Christ – mass. </p><p align="justify">The popish and Roman holy day of Christ-mass demonstrates very clearly that such festivals are in fact proved to be Babylonian. </p><p align="justify">How was Christ-mass that festival connected with December 25th? Scriptures says nothing about it. Nor could it have been the 25th of December. Such would be the wrong time of the year. There is no doubt that the climate of Palestine is so cold at night, from December to February, that it would not be the custom of the shepherds of Judea to watch their flocks in the open fields. </p><p align="justify">How, then, did the Romish Church fix December the 25th as Christ-mass? Why, thus long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen, at that precise time of the year, in honor of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed. </p><p align="justify">Rome no doubt saw the wassailing bowl of Christmass had its precise counterpart in the “Drunken festival” of Babylon; and many of the other observances still kept up among ourselves at Christmass came from the very same quarter.</p><p align="justify">The Yule log was to symbolize Zero-Ashta, “The seed of the woman,” which name also signified Ignigena, or “born of the fire,” he has to enter the fire on “Mother-night,” that he may be born the next day out of it, as the “Branch of God,” or the log that brings all divine gifts to men. But why, it may be asked, does he enter the fire under the symbol of a Log? To understand this, it must be remembered that the divine child born at the winter solstice was born as a new incarnation of the great god (after that god had been cut in pieces), on purpose to revenge his death upon his murderers.</p><p align="justify">The mistletoe bough in the Druidic superstition was derived from Babylon, as a representation of the Messiah, “The man the branch.” The mistletoe was regarded as a divine branch—a branch that came from heaven, and grew upon a tree that sprung out of the earth. </p><p align="justify">What about the Christ-mass goose? The Egyptian God Seb, with his symbol the goose; and the Sacred Goose on a stand, offered his sacrifice. In many countries we have evidence of a sacred character attached to the goose. It is well known that the capitol of Rome was on one occasion saved when on the point of being surprised by the Gauls in the dead of night, by the cackling of the geese sacred to Juno, kept in the temple of Jupiter. The goose in Asia Minor was the symbol of Cupid, just as it was the symbol of Seb in Egypt. In India, the goose occupied a similar position; for in that land we read of the sacred “Brahmany goose,” or goose sacred to Brahma. Finally, the monuments of Babylon show that the goose possessed a mystic character in Chaldea, and that it was offered in sacrifice there, as well as in Rome or Egypt, for there the priest is seen with the goose in the one hand, and his sacrificing knife in the other. There can be no doubt, then, that the Pagan festival at the winter solstice—in other words, Christ-mass, was held in honor of the birth of the Babylonian Messiah. The Roman Church popularized it, and borrow from paganism these things and applied them to Christ, overthrowing the Regulative Principle and creating worship out that which God never commanded.</p><p>This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-1163557869773116442006-11-13T21:26:00.000-05:002006-11-14T21:38:02.810-05:00Thanksgiving Part 2<p align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.</p><br /><p align="justify">Thanksgiving is a holiday that presses us to remember for those things which we are thankful. No doubt thankfulness really cannot begin anywhere but at the house of God, for only the remnant knows what saving grace is, and what it means, and that they ought to be thankful for Christ’s work.</p><br /><p align="justify">In such real-life circumstances of not simply sitting back in our recliners sipping our favorite drink do we recall Christ’s providence over our lives, but Pilgrims of this countries foundation praised God in extreme hardships. They did not have Grandma’s pumpkin pie, chocolates from Godiva, and Perdue’s 25 pound thanksgiving turkey ready to go at the nearest grocery store.</p><br /><p align="justify">Rather, they were thankful for sustenance, help and survival, and the meager necessities of having a roof over their head.</p><br /><p align="justify">One proclamation of this day, took place in 1789 and went like this:</p><br /><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><p></p><br /><p align="justify">“Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and</p><br /><p align="justify">Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness":</p><br /><p align="justify">Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the Beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.</p><br /><p align="justify">And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplication to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best. Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, AD 1789 George Washington.”</p><br /><p align="justify">More later…</p><br /><p align="justify">This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.</p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29410850.post-1163557270318483732006-11-12T21:12:00.000-05:002006-11-14T21:41:15.900-05:00Thanksgiving Part 1<p align="justify">Good Evening. A Puritan’s Mind brings you the old time radio program The Wild Boar News Podcast from Sunny South Florida. Welcome, I’m Dr. Matthew McMahon.</p><br /><p align="justify">The celebration we now popularly regard as the "First Thanksgiving" was the Pilgrims' three-day feast celebrated in early November of 1621 (although a day of thanks in America was observed in Virginia at Cape Henry in 1607). The first Thanksgiving to God in the Calvinist tradition in Plymouth Colony was actually celebrated during the summer of 1623, when the colonists declared a Thanksgiving holiday after their crops were saved by much-needed rainfall. The Pilgrims left Plymouth, England, on September 6, 1620, sailing for a new world that offered the promise of both civil and religious liberty. The Pilgrims had earlier left England in 1608, as the Church of England had curtailed their freedom to worship according to their individual consciences.</p><br /><p align="justify">The Pilgrims had settled in Holland for twelve years, where they found spiritual liberty in the midst of a disjointed economy (which failed to provide adequate compensation for their labors) and a dissolute, degraded, corrupt culture (which tempted their children to stray from faith). For almost three months, 102 seafarers braved harsh elements to arrive off the coast of what is now Massachusetts, in late November of 1620. On December 11, prior to disembarking at Plymouth Rock, they signed the "Mayflower Compact," America's original document of civil government and the first to introduce self-government; a mistake, yet historical reality. While still anchored at Provincetown harbor, their Pastor John Robinson counseled, "You are become a body politic ... and are to have only them for your... governors which yourselves shall make choice of." The Pilgrims were Separatists, sectarian Independents, which were America's Calvinist Protestants, who rejected the institutional Church of England. Upon landing in America, the Pilgrims conducted a prayer service, and then quickly turned to building shelters. Starvation and sickness during the ensuing New England winter killed almost half their population, but through prayer and hard work, with the assistance of their Indian friends, the Pilgrims reaped a rich harvest in the summer of 1621. Most of what we know about the Pilgrim Thanksgiving of 1621 comes from original accounts of the young colony's leaders, Governor William Bradford and Master Edward Winslow, in their own hand. The feast included foods suitable for a head table of honored guests, such as the chief men of the colony and Native leaders Massasoit ("Great Leader" also known as Ousamequin "Yellow Feather"), the sachem (chief) of Pokanoket (Pokanoket is the area at the head of Narragansett Bay). Venison, wild fowl, turkeys and Indian corn were the staples of the meal, which likely also included other food items known to have been aboard the Mayflower or available in Plymouth, such as spices, Dutch cheese, wild grapes, lobster, cod, native melons, pumpkin (pompion) and rabbit. By the mid 17th century, the custom of autumnal Thanksgivings was established throughout New England. Observance of Thanksgiving Festivals began to spread southward during the American Revolution, as the newly established Congress officially recognized the need to celebrate this day.</p><br /><p align="justify">On June 20, 1676, the governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts, held a meeting to determine how best to express thanks for the good fortune that had seen their community securely established. By unanimous vote they instructed Edward Rawson, the clerk, to proclaim June 29 as a day of thanksgiving, our first. The first Thanksgiving Proclamation was issued by the revolutionary Continental Congress on November 1, 1777. Authored by Samuel Adams, it was one sentence of 360 words, which read in part: "Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received...together with penitent confession of their sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor; and their humble and earnest supplications that it may please God through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance...it is therefore recommended...to set apart Thursday the eighteenth day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise, that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feeling of their hearts and consecrate themselves to the service of their Divine Benefactor...acknowledging with gratitude their obligations to Him for benefits received....To prosper the means of religion, for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth 'in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost'."</p><br /><p align="justify">It was one-hundred and eighty years after the first day of thanksgiving in America that our Founding Fathers officially recognized the day by proclamation of the Constitutional government. Soon after adopting the Bill of Rights, a motion in Congress to initiate the proclamation of a national day of thanksgiving was approved.</p><br /><p align="justify">More later…</p><br /><p align="justify">This is Dr. Matthew McMahon signing off.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0