Saturday, 21 April 2012

Sudan Islamic Regime Declares Jihad on South Sudan

Global Islam is far from finished with subjecting the world to its false religion.  In the Sudan, after ethnically cleansing its over 500,000 Christians, the rogue Arab Islamist regime of the Sudan has declared war on the Christian and black South Sudan.  No surprises here.  They live to declare war on all 'infidels' and unbelievers. 

This act of aggression is not about South Sudan's oil wealth.  It is and always was about jihad, domination and control, integral to the Islamic mind-fix.  Here is a people who were murdered, raped and enslaved for decades who finally managed to break away and declare themselves a free country. South Sudan is a UN member, and the UN charter specifically forbids aggression by one member against another.

Why the UN is silent and apparently inactive since this act of aggression is not difficult to see.  No one, not even the UN, is doing anything meaningful to stop this from happening.  And the reason? Because it involves Muslim aggression against non-Muslims, and it is Muslims who now control the UN.

So when Muslims gain control of any organisation or country, Muslim aggression against non-Muslims, which seems to be the order of the day, is ignored; in fact, given Islamic theology, this is but the outworking of their belief system.  They are but being obedient to their god, Allah, and his prophet, Mohammad.

US President Barack Hussein Obama claims to be a Christian. The question that some are asking is this: 'Is he going to defend black Christians against Islamist jihad, rape and murder?'  To act or not to act will place him in a position in which he will not please both sides.  But as a professing Christ - and you all know what I think of them - and based on his inactions so far, few will be holding their breath.

Where are the falsely so-called 'moderate Muslims' now?  What are they saying about this act of aggression?  Their silence is deafening.  This only goes to demonstrate that the problem is not one of extremist Muslims acting against the Qu'ran, but of the religion of the Qu'ran determining the behaviour of all its adherents.

Hence the need for Muslims to be confronted with the truth of the Gospel, and confronted in the most loving yet truthful way possible.  They are perishing because they have embraced a false religious system.  They need Christ alone Who alone can save them.  He died for them as well as everybody else.  They need to come to Him, repent of their sins and trust Him alone for salvation.

Friday, 20 April 2012

Dr Clifford on Islam, etc

This is essential reading for all those who want to understand something of the background to the Norwich Reformed Church's difficulties at present.   It can be got from me at £3.00, postage and packing extra. 

The book gives a brief but accurate analysis of Islam and draws very clear conclusions about the motivation for Islam's violent nature.

Get this book now and share it with your friends.

Thursday, 19 April 2012


This is the big thing today in many evangelical-type churches.  If it’s modern, we must have it.  Modern worship services; modern music and bands; modern versions of the Bible; modern church buildings (theatre style but no pulpit – only a platform or stage); modern language; modern presentation technology; modern dress (or undress); everything has to be 'modern.'

Why is this?  Well, modernity is the new god of 21st century evangelicalism.  Modernity is worshipped in these churches.  So much time and energy and finance are expended in maintaining allegiance to this god.  No amount of money is too much to promote the interests of this god, even if the wherewithal to keep paying to him is not there.  Even if it disrupts the worship service, that’s OK.  Modernity controls what happens in these churches and how. 

The good old hymns are jettisoned in favour of new evangelical ditties.  Charles Wesley is virtually unknown to this generation of young church members.  Mention of Isaac Watts, Philip Doddridge, William Cowper, is a no-no.  They are old fashioned, and not for this modern day church.  Ask them if they know and love the Psalms and Paraphrases, and they hardly know what you are talking about.  For them, the church started when the first Mission Praise book was published.  They are ignorant of history, therefore of God’s greatest historical characters the events that attended them, men who were used mightily by Him in past ages. 

Today, ministers do not even look like ministers; nor do those within the reformation tradition dress like reformed ministers. Everything has gone awry.  And all for the sake on the modern generation.

This generation is simply not taught the great truths held by a past generations of Christians.  Nor do many of them want it.  They have impoverished themselves by ignoring the greatest men who laboured in the best eras of the churches chequered and long history.  They can tell you all about the latest Christian Rock band and its latest release and how well it is doing in the Christian charts; but ask them about John Calvin or Jonathan Edwards or Robert Murray McCheyne or J. C. Ryle or even Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and they'd look at you as if you had two heads.  

These are not the 'moderns' therefore we want nothing to do with them.  

Modernity Rules! OK?

Wednesday, 18 April 2012

Norwich Reformed Church Features on BBC Website

The BBC website has given further coverage in its Norfolk News webpage about the Norwich Reformed Church eviction from City Council premises.  To read the entiure article, please visit here.

Amyraldianism Questioned and Defended

At times, ministers are in the position where they have to ask for evidence from those who take a contrary position on Gospel issues.  What exactly do they know about Amyraldianism and how much of what's available in English of Amyraut's works/theology have they read?  

I'm not trying to be funny or smart, but I know from personal experience that it is so easy to criticise or disagree with another man's theological position on the basis of second-hand knowledge.  I would also be keen to know what you make of Calvin's sermons, for example, on Isa.53.  Remember Iain Campbell's point that 'if you want to know what a man believes, you read his sermons.'  

DMLJ self-defined as a man of prayer and an evangelist.  How, then, do one assess DMLJ's theology in his evangelistic sermons on Acts, Ps.51, Ps.107, Ps.1.  The Kingdom of God, etc?  Through what lenses are these sermons read?  DMLJ stated that he never preached limited atonement, only once, he admitted, and he was in great difficulty when he did so.  His wife, Bethan, confessed that she did not believe in limited atonement, and never will; and she sat under her husband's ministry more than anyone else.  

Whatever he might have said in private, I defy anyone to find in any of his published sermons where he preached on limited atonement, or particular redemption.  I find it rather inane for his 'defenders' to say that he did believe in limited atonement but did not make a lot of it.  My question is: did DMLJ suffer from a  form of theological schizophrenia?  His 'defenders' did not like that suggestion, either.  

The Doctor saw election as the one truth that guarantees the success of evangelism, as I do.  It also brings great encouragement to the believer, especially when embattled.

I think that ministers and theologians have to furnish their evidence before making statements like, "You will understand that I will disagree ... on the Amyraldian position.  I see no support for that view from Calvin or Lloyd-Jones."  If they do their homework, they will find that both these men held to the classical reformed efficient/sufficient position.

In one of his rare TV interviews, DMLJ, in contrasting his view to that of his father, said, "I turned back to the message preached by the Methodist Fathers in which I maintain is the message of the church throughout the centuries."  These men were filled with the Holy Spirit and preached the everlasting Gospel of God with power sent down from heaven.  They were true Calvinists. 

I was in the position as an assistant minister in Wellington Street of having to decide whether to go with David Brown's interpretation of one of Christ's parables about 'the world' and holding to the plain text of Scripture, and I opted for the latter, and will always do so.  I believe in the perspicuity of Scripture and feel no need for a 'majesterium' through which to interpret it.  Thank God that He speaks clearly in the Word.

I would like to know this: did the so-called Five Points of Calvinism come from the Synod of Dhort teaching?  If so, then this document teaches inter alia that Christ's death is sufficient for the whole world.  That must surely mean that were the whole world to believe in Christ as freely offered in the Gospel then Christ's death was/is sufficient to atone for the world's sins.  This is what I believe, and that makes me, I assert, a true Five Point Calvinist.  I would ask my readers, lovingly, to enquire whether or not they are 5-pointers or a 4.5 pointers!  The true 5-pointer believes that Christ died efficiently for the elect and sufficiently for the whole world.  

I think it would be true to say that WCF is fine so far as it goes; its problem is that it does not go as far as Scripture, which is sad.  Also, it is merely a subordinate standard of many reformed churches, the Scriptures being the supreme standard.  WCF and other confessional documents are good guides, but to preach only what they teach is to sell the church short, be unfaithful to Scripture, and to preach a truncated message.  E.g, there is little in it about the love of God (though the 'thing' is there in other forms) and it does not require missionary activity of the church; evangelism can be seriously curtailled because of the fact that the elect will be saved infallibly; etc. 

Are you aware that when Amyraut was being tried for heresy in 1637 at Alencon so full of direct quotations from Calvin's works was his defense that his opponents could not bring themselves to condemn him for in so doing they would have been condemning Calvin whom they respected so greatly.  What do you make of this?  Which of the two antagonists was demonstrably more faithful to Calvin - Amyraut or his extremist opponents?

These are critically important matters which lie at the very heart of the evangel, and the departure from them is evidence of the church's departure from biblical Christianity. 

I do not believe that a sinner has first of all to ascertain whether or not he is "of the elect" before he can come to Christ; Scripture does not teach that.  He just has to know himself to be a man "of the world" to be warranted to come to the Saviour, as Thomas Chalmers taught.  

I think the church needs to re-assess its doctrinal stance to bring it into line with biblical teaching and to distance it from the scholasticism of Owen, who confessed, you remember, that he would give up all his learning if he could preach the Gospel like that tinker (referring to John Bunyan).  To distance her from the majesterium of Romanism, the Reformed churches must be crystal clear about the supremacy of Scripture in all matters of faith and practice.  To refuse to reform her confessional standards according to Scripture might suggest that these standards are in reality regarded as equal to or higher than Scripture, something all truly reformed men would deprecate.  This might caused the ultra-reformed to accuse me of incipient liberalism, but I can assure than that nothing could be further from the truth.  When the Welsh Presbyterian Church altered its Confession of Faith to bring it into line with Calvin's theology, DMLJ - a Presbyterian minister until his death raised no objection whatever to this change in an Amyraldian direction.  This is not widely known, of course.

It is most gratifying to know that Thomas Chalmers, Donald Macleod and Richard Muller all agree that Amyraldianism has been and is an integral part of the reformed heritage, and not some kind of heresy that men must avoid for fear of contamination.  So to be Amyraldian is to be reformed.  Because this is all in our heritage, let us rejoice in the Lord and in His goodness.

Tuesday, 17 April 2012


In the light of the ridiculous allegations made against Rev. Dr Alan C Clifford, one visitor to my website added the following statement:

"I have seen Muslims on my campus handing out pamphlets that talked about us Christians and Jews as "dirty kuffar"- yet that's not hate speech evidently!"

This writer, who seems to be a university or college student, has seen supposedly intelligent Muslims handing out their 'tracts' which contained those scurrilous words.  He rightly asks, Is this not 'hate speech'?  To refer to fellow human beings as "dirty kuffar" (whatever that means) sounds and was intended to be offensive.  This is to deal in prejudice, hatred, and in a most threatening way.

Yet the authorities seem to turn a blind eye to such unacceptable published language.  Muslims can say anything they like, not only about western civilisation and its peoples, and about their cherished religion of truth and love; but let not a Christian minister expound the Scriptures and apply its teaching to the religions aberrations that are everywhere around us.

It is surely not what is said in clear exposition of a particular religious position that is the issue; that must be maintained as a democratic right in a free society.  But when what is said is couched in language that is designed to be offensive and intimidatory and inflammatory, then there is a problem.  We surely have the right to analyse and evaluate the various philosophies that are being presented to us from many quarters, and that can never be taken from us.  However, when resort is made to describing these philosophies in ways that are unacceptable, a big problem arises.

The authorities need surely to examine their motives when they take actions against a Christian church and minister as they go about their normal tasks of presenting truth and exposing and opposing error.

More importantly, they must be very, very careful about touching the Lord's anointed or harming His prophets.  Those who do such things will reap a sorry reward.

Muslims Issue Death Threat to UK Citizen

The latest twist in the Norwich Reformed Church (NRC) situation is that a 77 year old man has been sent a death threat from a Muslim source just because he supports what the NRC had been doing.

This matter has been placed in the hands of the police who have recorded this as a race crime.

It appears that the Islamic religion is bent on bringing into 'subjection' - the true meaning of the world 'islam' - all those who have the courage and convictions to disagree with it.  This religion can only use violence and the threat of violence to pursue its evil agenda.  Let no one be deceived into believing that Islam is a religion of peace - it patently is not.

But let all those who take a staunchly biblical view of matters be aware that when the adherents of Islamic religion catch up with them, they too will be threatened with death.  This seems to be all they know.  

However, we must be aware of the fact that the Christian faith exists in a hostile world, and that hostility is currently being targeted on it by Islam.  Essentially this is an expected aspect of the spiritual warfare that has been going on ever since the fall of Satan (Lucifer) from heaven.  He entered the Garden of Eden, and wrought havoc in the first humans who lived on this planet; and he is still doing the same today.  This is but one manifestation of the devil's attacks.

In this situation, all Christians must be careful to remain within the high tower that God has provided for their safety.  I have often said that Ps.91:1 is our home address; and it is.  Outside of this there is no safety or protection for the Christian.

Monday, 16 April 2012

BBC Interviews Dr Alan Clifford re Islam Issue

To listen to Dr Alan C Clifford's interview with BBC Radio Norfolk on his church's eviction from City Council property, please click here.

Dr Clifford acquitted himself very well though of course when editords get their hands on a lengthy interview, the result is a greatly reduced piece for broadcast. 

However, what was broadcast was most gratifying.

Sunday, 15 April 2012


Concentrating on the peripherals seems to be the constant pastime of many Christians today.  They are greatly exercised about how the church looks, what the minister wears, which version of the Bible he uses, whether or not women cover their heads – with something physical like a hat or berry or scarf – how long the service and especially the sermon lasts, whether or not Psalms are sung exclusively, what form baptism takes, the form of church government, etc.  While I do not wish to minimise the importance of these things, there is more than a hint that so long as these outward things are observed, all is well in Zion.

Not so.  Behind all these good things is to be found what is in reality the heart of the matter.  Outward appearance can express and often covers inward reality.  But it is the inward reality that tells the true story.  Where the heart is unwell, surgery might be required.  When the heart is exposed, truth is seen.  When a serious heart condition is discerned, which could prove fatal, immediate action is necessary. But that’s painful, and dangerous.  And there are few who will attempt it.

To avoid all challenge and difficulty, its best to stay clear of anything approaching spiritual heart surgery.  That’s too much trouble both for the spiritual physician and for the patient.  Unlike a hospital heart patient who is usually thankful for such surgery, the church patient is more likely to rise up against you and become violent.  No gratitude for help is offered or administered. 

And that’s why there are very few true soul physicians in the church today.