Kersfees: Nugter nagedink oor 25 Desember

christmas-tree-blue cool

Grant Swart

Ek het groot waardering en respek vir God se kinders wat radikaal heilig wil lewe en in alle dinge die wil van God eerste probeer stel. Dis immers in ooreenstemming met  die duidelike opdrag in 1 Petrus 1:16 “Wees heilig, want Ek is heilig!”  Aan die anderkant is daar wel ook Christene wat ‘n behae daarin skep om hare te kloof en andere skuldig te laat voel oor nietige randsake. (moontlik as gevolg van onkunde)

Een so ‘n saak is die vraag : “Mag ‘n Christen Kersfees vier?”


VASTE FEITE

Kom ons begin met die nugtere stel van ‘n paar feite wat vas staan en waaroor almal behoort saam te stem :

Feit nommer een is : Jesus is nie op 25 Desember gebore nie. 

Verder:

  • Die groot meerderheid van mense op aarde vier Kersfees op ‘n goddelose en Godonterende manier (met vreet op aarde in plaas van vrede op aarde)* 
  • Daar is geen Bybelse bevel om Kersfees as ‘n feesdag te vier nie.
  • Daar is wel duidelike Skrifgedeeltes wat die geboorte/menswording van Jesus beskryf.
  • Daar is wel toegewyde gelowiges wat Kersfees vier op ‘n Godverheerlikende wyse.
  • Daar is ook opregte Christene wat niks met Kersfees te doen wil hê nie en dit as deur en deur heidens beskou.

Uit bogenoemde is dit klaar duidelik dat Christene verdeeld is oor hierdie saak. Selfs onder Christene Continue reading

Advertisements

Arminianism Agrees With Roman Catholicism, Calvinism Agrees With The Bible

road to rome

Arminianism at Home in Rome

But, however frivolous his cavils, the principles for which he contends are of the most pernicious  nature and tendency. I must repeat, what already seems to have given him so much offence, that Arminianism “came from Rome, and leads thither again.” Julian, bishop of Eclana a  contemporary and disciple of Pelagius, was one of those who endeavoured, with much art, to gild the  doctrines of that heresiarch, in order to render them more sightly and palatable. The Pelagian system,  thus varnished and paliated, soon began to acquire the softer name of Semipelagianism. Let us take a  view of it, as drawn to our hands by the celebrated Mr. Bower, who himself, in the main, a professed  Pelagian, and therefore less likely to present us with an unfavourable portrait of the system he  generally approved. Among the principles of that sect, this learned writer enumerates the following:

“The notion of election and reprobation, independent of our merits or demerits, is  maintaining a fatal necessity, is the bane of all virtue, and serves only to render good  men remiss in working out their salvation, and to drive sinners to despair.

“The decrees of election and reprobation are posterior to, and in consequence of, our  good or evil works, as foreseen by God from all eternity.”

Is not this too the very language of modern Arminianism? Do not the partizans of that scheme argue on the same identical terms? Should it be said, “True, this proves that Arminianism is Pelagianism revived; but it does not prove, that the doctrines of Arminianism are originally Popish:” a moment’s cool attention will make it plain that they are. Let us again hear Mr. Bower, who, after the passage just quoted, immediately adds, “on these two last propositions, the Jesuits found their whole system of grace and free-will; agreeing therein with the Semipelagians, against the Jansenists and St. Augustine.” The Jesuits were moulded into a regular body, towards the middle of the sixteenth century: toward the close of the same century, Arminius began to infest the Protestant churches. It needs therefore no great penetration, to discern from what source he drew his poison. His journey to Rome (though Monsicur Bayle affects to make light of the inferences which were at that very time deduced from it) was not for nothing. If, however, any are disposed to believe, that  Arminius imbibed his doctrines from the Socinians in Poland, with whom, it is certain, he was on terms of intimate friendship, I have no objection to splitting the difference: he might import some of his tenets from the Racovian brethren, and yet be indebted, for others, to the disciples of Loyola. Continue reading

The End of Self….The Beginning of Christ

543915_402702803145838_1076675717_n

Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892)
taken from: Cured At Last!, sermon No. 2018, April 8, 1888.

“All that you do apart from Jesus, in order to win salvation, will only cause you increased suffering. You have tried to save yourself by prayers. Your prayers have turned your thoughts upon your sin and its punishment and thus you have become more wretched than before. You have attended to ceremonies and if you have used them sincerely, they have worked in you a solemn sense of the holiness of God and of your own distance from Him. And this, though very proper, has only increased your sorrow. You have been trying to feel good and to do good, that so you may be good. But the very effort has made you feel how far off you are from the goodness you so much desire.

Your self-denial has excited cravings after evil and your mortifications have given new life to your pride. Efforts after salvation made in your own strength act like the struggles of a drowning man, which sink the more surely. As the fruit of your desperate efforts, you have suffered all the more. In the end I trust this may work for your good, but up till now it has served no healing purpose—you are now at death’s door and all your praying, weeping, Church-going, Chapel-going and sacrament-taking—do not help you one bit. There has been this peculiarly poignant pang about it all, that you are not better. Cheerily did you hope but cruelly are you disappointed. Continue reading

Getting Past the TULIP

Tulip Nico

Michael S. Horton

“Like Christ’s redeeming work, then, faith is not merely offered but is actually conferred, by sheer grace and without any obligation to grant it.”

Just as Luther’s followers preferred to be called “evangelicals” but were labeled “Lutherans” by Rome, around 1558 Lutherans coined the term “Calvinist” for those who held Calvin’s view of the Supper over against both Zwingli and Luther. Despite self-chosen labels such as “evangelical” and “Reformed” (preferred because the aim was always to reform the catholic church rather than start a new one), “Calvinism” unfortunately stuck as a popular nickname.

No Central Dogma  Continue reading

GOD’S SOVEREIGNTY DEFINED

550644_188893077915195_157526972_n

People who vehemently fight against the Doctrines of Grace,  have NO understanding of Scripture,  it is due to a lack of understanding and reading the Word of God. This is why there are so many , stupid , senseless ugly arguments about the doctrines of election on Social media. People are not taught the Bible at most churches today, hence the lack of and rejection of the Bible. People wake up and study the Word! Continue reading

If God is so powerful and so good, why do bad things happen?

 “SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD”

“Alleluia, for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.”

There are basically two aspects in any definition of sovereignty. In order for anyone to be a king he must possess, (1) Absolute Authority, and, (2) All Power. A king must have the right to rule, and the ability to carry out his will. God said through Isaiah, “.. for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me .. My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” Isa. 46:9-10. Our God is a unique King in that his reign is eternal, “..the LORD sitteth King for ever.” Psa. 29:10.

A — DEFINITION OF SOVEREIGNTY:

“That the great God, blessed for ever, hath an absolute power and right dominion over his creatures, to dispose and determine of them as seemeth him good. Elisha Coles, God’s Sovereignty.” P 1.

B — PLACE OF SOVEREIGNTY:

We are not to think necessarily that sovereignty is an attribute of God. It is the conclusion of all His attributes. When we read that God is holy, just, love, gracious, merciful, all-wise, all-powerful, yea, all the works of God we see displayed, we reckon that He is sovereign! This is of extreme value to the child of God, to know there is no greater than his God.

“Although the sovereignty of God is universal and absolute, it is not the sovereignty of blind power. It is coupled with infinite wisdom, holiness, and love. And this doctrine, when properly understood, is a most comforting and reassuring one. Who would not prefer to have his affairs in the hands of a God of infinite power, wisdom, holiness and love, rather than to have them left to fate, or chance, or irrevocable natural law, or to short-sighted and perverted self? Those who reject God’s sovereignty should consider what alternatives they have left.” Loraine Boettner.

All of the works of God described in the Bible indicate that He is sovereign and that he has such authority and power, even as we are told in our text, “..the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.” When John, in the Revelation, saw inside heaven he saw, “the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb.” Rev.21:22 Continue reading

Abhoring Error and Loving the Truth

21700_10151202424473440_863888957_n

By Horatius Bonar

“Our Reformers, following Scripture, abhorred error. They regarded it as sin, as in itself evil, and as the root of almost every evil. They loved truth, upheld it, sought to spread it. They eschewed error as poison; they prized truth as medicine, containing in it the world’s true health. They knew that men might have it and yet not use it, that they might abuse it, that they might ‘hold it in unrighteousness;’ but they loved it still, and refused to believe that any untruth, however beautiful, however well argued or well adorned, however recommended by authority, or antiquity, or genius, could be available for the revivification of collapsed prostrate Europe, for expelling the poison of ages from the veins of humanity, for bracing the constitution of the race, even apart from the great purpose of saving the lost, of gathering in the chosen of the Father, the purchased of the Son.

Our Reformers, working on the model of the Bible, laboured to set truth before the nations. They did not despise ‘head knowledge.’ They were careful that head knowledge should be true knowledge; and, in so far as it was so, they urged its widest propagation; undeterred by the thought which acts as a drag or damper on some, ‘What is the use of head knowledge without heart knowledge?’ They had confidence in truth, because it was of God, and because it was the representative of Him who is the wisdom and the truth of God. Continue reading