Vasilica Croitor si Emil Mestereaga – Agentia Penticostala de Misiune Externa (APME)

Interviu – Emisiunea: Pana la marginile Pamantului cu Ghita Ritisan. Published on Mar 22, 2012 by 

Invitati: Pastorul Vasilica Croitoru, Biserica Penticostala Betleem, Medgidia si autor al cartii „Rascumpararea Memoriei”. Emil Mestereaga este Pastor la Biserica Vestea Buna – Bucuresti, Profesor de Limba Greaca la Institutul Teologic Penticostal si Pastorul Studentilor (ITP).

Link pentru APME aici.

Part 1

Part 2

Related articles

Covenants, Kings and the Promised Land (video)

DVD available at Barnes & Noble (click on photo) (Volumes 1 &2)

(DVD at Barnes & NoblesAmazon):


In a style all his own, Dave Stotts–host and editor of Drive Thru History–speeds through the ancient world of the Bible, giving you a fast-paced encounter with the people, places, and events that have shaped our world and the Christian faith. Recommended family entertainment by The Dove Foundation, Stotts’ Drive Thru History series includes on-location explorations, plus loads of animations and narration that’s definitely ‘outside the classroom.’ From the ruins of Jericho, to the valley of Jezreel where God defeated the Midianites through Gideon, you will travel on a visually exciting journey through the land of the Bible, revealing the history and culture behind the stories of Scripture. The video also includes a PDF for each episode containing discussion questions designed for groups and families. Conquest, Canaanites, and the Holy City includes: Episode 1: Arrival in Jerusalem,2-min. History of Israel, conquest sites, Jericho, and Hazor Episode 2: Samaria, Shechem, and Shiloh Episode 3: Jezreel, Meggido, and Tel Dan

Related articles

Bible 101: What’s in the New Testament

Gospel of St. Matthew, Great Bible, 1539. (Gutenberg archives) source here

By James-Michael Smith from Bible 101: What’s in the New Testament – National methodist |

Most people know certain phrases or passages in the New Testament, but don’t have a good bird’s-eye-view of the whole thing.  Here is a quick overview of the 27 documents which make up the NT:

1. The Gospels

Matthew – The Gospel of Matthew is focused on showing Jesus’ fulfillment of the OT prophecies and depictions of the Messiah. The author is believed to be the disciple, Matthew, who was a former tax-collector whom Jesus called to follow him. Matthew’s Gospel is divided into 5 sections by large discourses given by Jesus. Some believe this is Matthew’s subtle attempt to offer an NT parallel of the Torah, the 5 books of Moses, thus depicting Jesus as the new Moses. Matthew chs. 5-7 comprise the famous “Sermon on the Mount.” The book contains a striking inclusio – it begins with the nations (represented by the astrologers from the east) coming to worship the King of the Jews and ends with the King of the Jews sending His followers out into all the nations to spread the message of His Gospel (a.k.a. the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20).

Mark – Mark’s Gospel is the shortest of the 4 Gospels and many believe it was the first one written. The author is believed to be John Mark, who was Peter’s traveling companion. Mark is fast paced (note how many times the words “immediately” or “as soon as” appear throughout the book) and tells the basic message of Jesus. The most interesting feature of Mark’s Gospel is that it doesn’t include an account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances to the disciples, as the other Gospels do. [Note: the KJV and other older translations include 16:9-20, however, this ending is not in the original and most reliable Greek manuscripts of Mark and are later additions. Most newer translations note this by offsetting the text in question in brackets or footnoting the information.]

Luke & Acts – The Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts comprise one 2-volume work written by one of Paul’s traveling companions, Luke. Luke’s account of Jesus’ life and the rise of the early church and spreading of the Gospel message throughout the Mediterranean world are filled with historical details that only an eyewitness would likely know. Luke 15 contains the parable known as the Prodigal Son, one of the most well-known of Jesus’ parables. Acts contains the story of Saul’s conversion and being renamed Paul by the resurrected Jesus.

John – John’s Gospel was written for one reason: “so that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that through believing, you may have life in his name” (John 20:31). John follows Jesus’ ministry, not chronologically like the others, but rather thematically. This Gospel is centered around 8 miracles performed by Jesus, six of which are only found in John. Chs. 14-17 comprise the “upper room discourse” where Jesus explains His purpose in being crucified and promises to send the Holy Spirit after His ascension. John’s Gospel, unlike the others, does not record a genealogy or birth narrative, a calling of the disciples, or parables.

2. Paul’s epistles

(Note: contrary to popular understanding, Paul’s letters are actually the earliest Christian documents and reflect the theology of the very earliest followers of Jesus.  One often hears that Paul came along and distorted the original message of Jesus and „invented” a new religion…however the historical facts do not support this theory at all.)

Romans – Paul’s letter to the church in Rome is seen as the most ‘theological’ of all his letters. Paul states his purpose in writing in the first chapter: “So I am eager to preach the good news to you also who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, and also to the Greek…” (Romans 1:15-16). The rest of the letter follows this thought as Paul shows how God has revealed Himself to Jews and Gentiles alike in order to free them from the bondage of Sin.

1Corinthians – The church in Corinth was experiencing the power of the Holy Spirit to a large degree. However, there were people in the church who were causing many problems because of their immaturity and sometimes, blatant sin. Paul writes to encourage the faithful, challenge the immature, and rebuke the sinful in Corinth. Most of the teachings on the gifts of the Spirit are found in this letter in chs. 12-14.

2Corinthians – Paul’s second letter to the church in Corinth is a great example of Paul using rhetorical techniques such as irony and sarcasm to make his points. There were some among the Corinthians who were challenging Paul’s authority as an Apostle and claiming that because he was suffering so much, he surely couldn’t have divine approval. Paul uses heavy sarcasm in this letter, referring to himself repeatedly as “foolish” and his opponents as “super-apostles.”

Galatians – The churches in Galatia were wrestling with the issue of how non-Jews were to act in order to become Christians. There were some, known as the “Judaizers” who were pressuring Gentile believers to get circumcised and to obey the laws of the Torah before they could be considered true believers. Paul, himself a Pharisee of the highest pedigree, declares that to do this is to add something to what Jesus has already provided for salvation, and is therefore a mockery of the Gospel.

Ephesians – The phrase that dominates Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus is “in Him” (or ‘in Christ’/ ‘in the Lord’). Paul shares with the Ephesian believers that since they have come to faith and have united themselves with Jesus, they share in His glory and have become the body of Christ. This is why he stresses how important it is to remain unified and to continue to abide in Christ rather than live in sin.

Philippians – Paul writes to the church at Philippi to encourage them by using the example of Jesus coming to earth as a model for humility and self-sacrifice. Paul tells them that though he has achieved much from a human perspective, it is all worthless when compared to the value of knowing Jesus. He encourages them to continue to run the race with perseverance.

Colossians – Paul writes to the church at Colosse in order to give them a true understanding of who Jesus really was—God in the flesh! False teachers were a constant source of danger to the churches and Paul wants the Colossian Christians to be aware of them and to be able to detect errors when it comes to claims about Jesus. Paul concludes by giving practical advice for the believers in their city and encourages them in prayer.

1Thessalonians – The church at Thessalonica was a very young church so Paul writes to them in order to give them assurance and guidance. One important topic for them was the return of Jesus—when would it take place? What about people who died before he returned? These are some of the questions Paul sought to answer in this letter.

2Thessalonians – Paul writes his second letter to the Thessalonians in order to comfort them to challenge them that though Jesus would return at some point, they were not to become idle in waiting for Him. Some had neglected their normal day-to-day life using the excuse that they were simply waiting on Jesus who would return at any moment. Paul challenges them to live responsibly and to continue to persevere in spite of persecution or suffering.

1Timothy – Paul’s two letters to Timothy as well as his letter to Titus are commonly referred to as the “Pastoral Epistles” because Paul is writing to two church leaders. In 1 Timothy, Paul gives the young leader guidance on how to oversee the ministry of the churches.

2Timothy – This is one of Paul’s final letters. He writes from prison in Rome to encourage Timothy to continue the work of the Gospel. This is Paul’s farewell letter to Timothy and is filled with passion and urgency as Paul seeks to pass the torch to his young friend.

Titus – Titus was a leader of the churches on the island of Crete. Like his first letter to Timothy, Paul’s letter to Titus gives him practical advice on how to lead and equip the churches so that they will grow in faith and avoid false doctrines.

Philemon – The letter to Philemon is the shortest of Paul’s letters—only 1 chapter! In it, Paul seeks to convince Philemon, a member of the Colossian church, to forgive his slave Onesimus and accept him as a brother in Christ rather than a slave—an incredible statement for Paul to make in an age when slavery was a cultural norm. Onesimus had fled from Philemon and somehow met Paul. Paul evidently led Onesimus to the Lord and was now sending him back to Philemon along with this letter so that they would be reconciled and so that Philemon could show the church that the Gospel transcends social categories and institutions.

3. The general epistles

Hebrews – The letter to the Hebrews is the only letter in the NT whose authorship is completely unknown. Some have attributed it to Paul, but this is only speculation. However, the message of the letter is definitely Apostolic. The author of Hebrews seeks to show how Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT priesthood and sacrificial system. Hebrews contains some of the strongest warnings against turning away from the Gospel message in the NT.

James – James was Jesus’ half brother and the leader of the church in Jerusalem—he’s not to be confused with James the disciple who was killed early in the book of Acts (also, Catholics believe Jesus’ mother, Mary, remained a virgin her entire life, therefore they believe James to either be Joseph’s son from a previous marriage or one of Jesus’ cousins). James’ letter is written to the church everywhere as an encouragement to endure persecution and to put into practice what Christians say they believe. James’ focus is on internal integrity being the mark of the true Christian’s life.

1Peter – Peter, like James, writes to Christians scattered throughout the Roman empire for the purpose of encouraging them to persevere in their faith despite persecution and hardship. Peter emphasizes the necessity of being God’s holy people, just as Israel has always been called to be.

2Peter – Peter’s final letter was written shortly before his execution in Rome. In this letter he writes to all the churches in order to send them a final warning to be on the lookout for false teachers and to be filled with knowledge of God so that they can expose such errors as they arise. Peter ends the letter with a final call to the church to live holy lives while awaiting the final judgment and to grow in grace and knowledge of God and His Word.

1John – According to early church tradition, the Apostle John was the last surviving Apostle and the only one to not be martyred for his faith (he was exiled to the island of Patmos instead!). 1John is believed to be his letter to all Christians, urging them to abide in Jesus (as per Jesus’ teaching in ch.15 of his Gospel) and to live lives of holy devotion while avoiding the false teaching that would eventually become known as gnosticism (the idea that true fellowship with God can be attained through secret knowledge or gnosis in Greek). 1John has been called the Letter of Love in the NT because the word ‘love’ appears 52 times in just 5 chapters. There is some doubt as to whether the author of 1, 2 and 3John is the same as the author of John’s Gospel (or whether the author is in fact the Apostle John or another elder in the early church since he is not named in these letters. It is equally possible that the author is an early Apostle, such as Lazarus).

2John – 2 John, like 1John, was written to encourage Christians in love and to warn against false teachers. The “Elect Lady and her Children” in v.1 is most likely a title for the local church to whom John is writing.

3John – 3John is a letter from John to Gaius commending him for his support of traveling ministers who spread the Gospel throughout the Roman empire.

Jude – Jude was the brother of James (the head of the Jerusalem church) and half-brother of Jesus. His letter is written to all Christians for the purpose of reminding them to keep on their guard against heresy or false teachings. Jude warns false teachers and apostates of the judgment that awaits them, should they continue to oppose and distort the Gospel.

4. Apocalyptic epistle

[Note: „Apocalyptic” is a genre of literature that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the end of the world, as the English word has come to mean.  The term literally means „unveiling” or „revealing.”  But apocalyptic writings often do look, envision things having to do with the culmination of history.]

Revelation – The most well known (and most misunderstood) book of the NT, Revelation, was written by John while he was in exile on Patmos. John has a vision from God of Jesus’ message to the churches throughout the Roman empire and then a vision of all of redemptive history as it began unfolding when Jesus ascended to Heaven after His resurrection (chs.5ff). The genre of the book is Apocalyptic, whereby world events and spiritual realities are portrayed through symbols and epic stories. Though there have been many interpretations of Revelation, the main message can be summed as an encouragement to the early church to maintain their faithful witness in spite of persecution and temptation, and they will inherit the kingdom of God.

(6) Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones at the Evangelical Alliance 1966 by Geoff Thomas

Pentru traducere automata, fa click aici – Romanian

Read Part 1 here – a history

Read Part 2 here – 1962 Address by Lloyd-Jones

Read Part 3 here – An accounting from those who attended

Read Part 4 here – What the newspapers reported

Read Part 5 here – Lloyd-Jones on schism

From via Reformation 21 blog

Then and Now: 1966-1996

by Geoff Thomas

Thirty years ago at the. Second National Assembly of Evangelicals organized by the Evangelical Alliance in London on October 19th, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones spoke for the last time for the EA on the theme ofEvangelical Unity in the course of which address he asked his audience: „What reasons have we for not coming together?…My friends, we are not only the guardians and custodians of the faith of the Bible, we are the modern representatives and successors of the glorious men who fought this same fight, the good fight of faith, in centuries past. ..I believe that God is calling upon us to maintain this ancient witness, not occasionally, not haphazardly, but always, and to put it to the people of this country”.1

Have Christians grown closer and more co-operative in these past three decades? What is the social and spiritual situation in the United Kingdom at the end of the 20th century?

Social conditions in the land

There are many improvements in the world which have taken place over the past thirty years which make us glad that we are living at this time. Treatment of cancer and other diseases has vastly improved. Britain has become a more cohesive middle-class nation and the continual strikes and class divisions of the 60s are a bad dream. There is a general political consensus with little messianic hopes in the effectiveness of the Whitehall and Brussels decision-makers. Apartheid has ended in South Africa, Communism has been largely discredited and the West has won the cold war. A world war or even a European conflict seems the most distant of possibilities. Britain has become a more prosperous nation. Chicken and turkey are the cheapest meats: supermarkets the size of aeroplane hangers are filled with the highest quality and range of foods. Communications not controlled by Caesar are accessible to every man. It is cheap to call the USA and. even Australia. Missionaries have access to the Internet. It has never been so inexpensive and convenient to travel internationally.

However, other social factors make us long for thirty years ago. There has taken place an unimaginable moral decline. Family life has taken a battering. One repeated statistic is that Britain has the highest divorce rate in Europe, while crime statistics are at an all time peak: we have more men in prison per head of population than any country in the European Community. There is a widespread fear of and familiarity with violence and burglary. The National Lottery has made 75% of the nation gamblers. Great Britain is awash with drugs. Alcoholism is a cruel widespread problem. Education has become a football kicked about by trendy politicians of both parties of government, and illiteracy has become an all-time high. Never was there such ignorance of the Bible and the Christian religion. Abortion on demand has resulted in the deaths of millions of healthy unborn children. The Northern Ireland situation is as unsolvable as ever. Militant homosexuals are tireless in their demands for the state’s recognition of their so-called marriages. Feminism encourages the gender destruction of male and female roles. Sport is harsher through commercialism, and sportsmen more superficial people. Christians are being persecuted and murdered in Cuba, Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Laos, Vietnam, China and North Korea.

The strengths of Reformed evangelicalism

Where do true evangelical churches stand today? Consider their strengths: a steadiness in their congregational lives. One knows of some hundreds of churches throughout the British Isles and if one entered their meeting-places on a Sunday morning, one could be at peace and be led in worship by ministers who fear God and have led congregations to honour their Lord. One would hear the Word of God opened up and dealt with responsibly. Most university towns have a free grace pulpit for students to hear the whole Counsel of God. There also has been an extraordinary explosion of publishing so that no Christian bookshop can find room on its shelves to stock all the fine commentaries, biographies, literature on the world and life view, family life, evangelism, and children’s books that are now available. Consider those writers, all of whose books one would love to purchase and read, Sproul, MacArthur, Packer, Boice, Stott, Ferguson, Morris, Adams, Carson, Clowney, Chantry and Lloyd-Jones. Systematic theologies like those written by aBrakel, Turretin, Grudem (and soon the four volumes of Bavinck) have recently appeared. Definitive books like lain Murray’s two volumes of Dr Lloyd-Jones and Revival & Revivalism have filled a hole in the Church’s understanding of men and movements. Soli Deo Gloria are reprinting Puritan works as if there were a competition to print them with a dozen other publishers, and sometimes there is. There is a fascinating range of monthly, bi-monthly and quarterly periodicals. About twenty good conservative magazines and papers are being published in Britain. Cassettes of the best preaching are available from many sources.

There is a choice of Reformed theological seminaries in which to study. For example, theEvangelical Theological College of Wales in Bryntirion has more students than the sum of all the „theologs” in every other seminary in Wales. The single Roman Catholic Seminary in Wales in Aberystwyth has closed down from lack of vocations. America, especially, displays such vigorous growth of conservative seminaries. There is also a network of conferences, stable and well attended – The Carey Ministers’ Conference (January), The Banner of Truth Conference (March), The Caister FIEC (April), The Grace Assembly (May), The Bala Conference of the EMW Ministers (June), The Metropolitan School ofTheology (June), The Aberystwyth EMW Conferences (August), and the Westminster Conference for Historical Studies (December). Ministers especially know one another, and with some of them on an international conference circuit the work of God world-wide is better known today than at any period.

About all the above there is a proper modesty and unassumedness. These churches all realise that (apart from some congregations in the Hebrides) a commitment to the Reformed Faith does not generate large numbers. Deciding whether they would have many members and much money and read about themselves in the newspaper those churches have decided to promote a growing love for the preaching and application of the whole Counsel of God. They know they could not have both, and faithfulness is valued as more important than influence. Calvinistic piety is not flashy or obvious.

 The weaknesses of Reformed evangelicalism

One obvious difference between 1966 and 1996 is the figure of Dr Lloyd-Jones, or some equivalent preacher ofpreachers. Our greatest weakness is a lack of an awakening ministry in the nation. Where we deam ourselves strongest there, as ever, our impotence lies. This shows itselfin the narrow choice ofinspirational speakers for the big occasions, in the enterprise of church-planters here and abroad. The whole missionary enterprise has been hi-jacked by missionary societies so that men who go overseas never do what they do in this country, that is, preach in one local congregation in the language of the people and build up a church in loving the whole Counsel of God. Rather, virtually every missionary today administers or teaches local men how to pastor and preach. One consequence is the absence ofexpository preachers from the entire continent ofAfrica. They have been given no r<>le models.

Then there has been in the British Isles in our circles the bringing low of congregations, Christian institutions and leaders. Churches have split, notable men have fallen into flagrant sin, congregations which once loved the whole Counsel of God have collapsed under false teaching.

The charismaticization of churches

There are three types of churches men can make choice of today – if one dares to set aside the vigour of many Roman Catholic congregations. There are the charismatic congregations with their fascination with supposedly spontaneous and body-led ministries. Then, secondly, there is the Willow Creek model of focusing worship on unchurched Harry and Sally as so using singing groups and drama spots to make the man in the street feel unthreatened. Thirdly, there is unadorned and faithful Reformed worship.

Both the charismatic and the Willow Creek models have influenced Reformed congregations. David Tomlinson writes, „There is little doubt that Spring Harvest is one of the most influential factors in the charismaticization of evangelicalism.. .it would be difficult to overstate its significance in the present positive climate”.2 He adds that the March of Jesus „contributes to the overall sense of growing self-confidence among Evangelicals”.3 The umbrella under which all such things happen is the Evangelical Alliance. Clive Calver’s appointment to its leadership in 1983 „symbolized powerfully the way that the centre ground of evangelicalism was moving, for Calver is an unashamed Charismatic with New Church connections”.4

Even those churches which have not adopted pentecostal theology in the past thirty years have been affected liturgically. Nowhere more than in hymnody and conduct in worship is the gulf between Evangelicals of 1966 and 1996 displayed. In 1966 we were longing for some new hymn-books, and we had to wait a further ten years for Grace & Christian Hymns to appear. There was an indadequacy in the smaller evangelical collections such as Christian Praise and Hymns ofFaith. There was a conviction that the treasures of hymnody found in past writers ofdeeply experiential piety would have an abiding pastoral, theological and doxological contribution to the Church ofour age, and pervasive liberalism alone had been responsible for expunging them from denominational hymnbooks. So Grace Hymns appeared saying in its Preface: „The book contains many hymns which have fallen out of use but are worthy of a restored place in the Church’s praise”. And in the Preface of Christian Hymns the editors wrote: „There is the need for the rediscovery and restoration of a considerable number of hymns from times of revival and evangelical awakening…From this treasure-house it has been our privilege to draw extensively, for many of the greatest hymns of the Church come from this period”. The motivation in the choice of the hymns in these books was pervasive God-centredness. These two fine hymn books had barely appeared when a totally new mood entered evangelicalism, claiming that what was needed was not such hymns at all but rather contemporary hymns, necessarily wed to upbeat tunes, which the man in the street could identify with. And as almost every church seems to have more hymn-writers than preachers there was no stemming the flood of new hymns, tunes, and collections that swamped us. Spring Harvest became the proselytising agency for the new style of songs. If Grace & Christian Hymns had not appeared when they did what greater liturgical chaos would world-wide evangelicalism have been in, all in the name of „creativity” and contemporaneity in worship.

The new Christian

Ian Cotton has a new book entitled The Hallelujah Revolution: The Rise ofthe New Christians.5 He characterises the new Christian of 1996 as religiously Evangelical, instinctively irrational, politically liberal, economically socialist, theologically feminine (preferring a „gentle feminine Jesus over a macho, stern Jehovah”), vocationally „post- industrial”, experientially „relational”, and socially egalitarian (the new Christian is into mutual accountability groups).

Cotton describes this charismatic mindset thus: „We have the go-with-the flow attitude which De Bono characterized as ‘water logic’. Instead of reason and order, we have instinct, vision, the Holy Ghost. Instead of step-by-step linear progression, we have the all-at- once, the miraculous. Instead o f the verbal architecture o f the sermon, we have the preverbal instinctiveness of ‘tongues’. This is the distinctively modern end of the movement, where change, fluidity, uncertainty, and flexible boundaries are paramount”.6

Most such „new Christian” churches are outside of the WCC and official ecumenical structures, despising that movement for its political agenda and cerebral ethos. Certainly something more than opposition to schemes of unity dominated by modernists is needed to unite Evangelicals in contending for the faith. Perhaps that was one weakness of evangelical beliefs in 1966 – they gave more credence to the power of the Ecumenical Movement than it merited. For true unity there must be a passionate love for the whole Counsel of God, not just a fear of the counterfeit.

The British Evangelical Council grew with a desire to strengthen its culturally and theologically marginalised member denominations, to take conservative churches out of their isolation and absorption with their own problems and perspectives and give them an opportunity to contemplate the nation-wide mission of the Church of Jesus Christ. Its member churches are separatists but not isolationists.

Men most sympathetic with the BEC feel that the Evangelical Alliance is inconsistent on modernism. How could a body that is opposed to liberalism allow its officers and member churches to retain their membership in denominations dominated by modernism? How can preachers remain in a unity of fellowship in the EA? Do they not realise that such equivocation creates deep problems of friendship and trust to other preachers? That issue has not gone away in the past thirty years. It is not likely to do so in the next millenium.

John Stott famously opposed Dr Lloyd-Jones’ exhortation for churches to come together on the basis of historic Christianity, telling that EA conference, „Scripture is against him, the remnant was within the Church not outside it”. As he walked out of the meeting with Dr Lloyd-Jones he murmured apologetically that he was afraid that some of the Anglican clergy might have left their churches the next morning had he said nothing more. Stott spoke on behalfofthe vast majority ofAnglicans. They were staying in the Church of England. Yet when the issue of the ordination of women arose the Evangelicals were mute, even though that would mean 300 ministers would resign over the issue.7 The greatest difference in the Church of England in 1996 as compared to 1966 is the presence of 1,400 women priests, and a huge irretrievable lurch to liberalism.

Other evangelical Anglicans such as those centred on St Helen’s Bishopsgate, considered that „only human traditions were holding brothers and sisters [i.e. Anglicans and Free Churchmen] at arm’s length”.8 So Dick Lucas’s answer was to start yet another conference, the Evangelical Ministry Assembly „to repair some bridges of fellowship”. So, Anglicans who never met in fellowship with their non-conformist brethren (except when they were invited to speak) at any of the well-established conferences at Leicester, Bala, BEC, Carey, Metropolitan Tabernacle, Aberystwyth, Westminster, etc. (even when they live in close proximity to those places), began yet another conference „to tackle the sad division between Anglican and Free Church Ministers”.9 In other words, non- attendance at that conference indicated one was promoting division, and the extravagant claims were made: „God’s hand was on Dick’s brainchild and the conference has proved a major part of the evangelical year”.10

The British Evangelical Council

The critics of the BEC will point to its alleged diminished influence in 1996 compared to the late 60s. They may grumble that it has assumed the position of an „isolationist porcupine”, small, circumscribed and obscure instead of a vigorous and militant group calling Britain back to the old paths. Surely its pervasively Reformed identity has meant it has become marginal to what some might envy as the mold-breakers and trend-setters of ecclesiastical life in Britain. But the Word teaches us that God does not use the magnificent and mighty to achieve its ends, rather, as the apostle Paul wrote, God uses „jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power” is from Him only. In 1996 the evidence weakness of our human efforts and the all-sufficiency of God’s grace means that the Reformed churches have a precious message and a unique task testifying to everything God has revealed. We may not judge the next thirty years in the light of our present experience.

Israel – Reportaj de la (presupusul) mormant de unde a inviat Hristos precum si alte locatii mentionate in Evanghelii

AlfaOmegaTV incepe repotajul cu  gradina in care se presupune ca se afla moamantul lui Iosif din Arimateea de unde a inviat Domnul Isus.  Published on Apr 26, 2012 by  ultimele stiri la

Din sumarul editiei:
– Gradina Mormantului: locul in care a inviat Isus ?
– Colectia Green dezvaluie traseul Cuvantului lui Dumnezeu
– Traseul Evangheliei permite turistilor sa paseasca pe urmele Domnului Isus
– Un pastor din Filipine a fost ucis din cauza credintei sale
– Copiii saraci din Las Vegas au ajutat-o pe directoarea scolii sa isi descopere adevarata chemare
– Marsul Invierii din Timisoara a ajuns la a XXI-a editie

Literatura – Jane Austen – Emma subtitrat in Limba Romana

Cineva a subtitrat filmul dupa Romanul „Emma” scris the Jane Asuten. Este un film educational pentru tinerii contemporani care ar invata multe din actiunile tinerilor din perioada filmului. Despre Jane Asutin, scrie Adriana Laliu – editor aici:

Una dintre cele mai celebre scriitoare, Jane Austen, a scris cateva romane care raman si astazi unele dintre cele mai iubite lucrari din literatura. Printre acestea se numara „Mandrie si prejudecata”, „Emma” si „Northanger Abbey”.
Jane Austen scria intr-o perioada in care femeile scriitoare erau foarte putine. Cele mai multe dintre cartile sale erau semnate prin pseudonime. Jane Austen avea sa deschida calea  urmatoarei generatii de femei scriitoare.
Jane Austen s-a nascut in Steventon, Hampshire (Marea Britanie) pe 16 decembrie 1775. A fost cel de-al saptelea copil din cei 8. Tatal ei, George Austen, a fost vicar si aducea familiei un venit de 600 de lire pe an. La acea vreme, aceasta suma ii plasa in clasa de mijloc. Nu erau bogati, de aceea tatal lor nu a fost capabil sa le sprijine suficient din punct de vedere financiar. Jane a crescut alaturi de cei 5 frati si sora sa mai mare, Cassandra. Un alt frate, Edward, a fost adoptat de o familie de nobili fara copii. Jane a fost foarte aproapiata de familia sa, in special de Cassandra, careia ii era foarte devotata. Cele doua surori au corespondat in cea mai mare parte din viata lor. Multe dintre lucrurile care se stiu despre Jane provin chiar din aceste scrisori. Din nefericire, Cassandra a ars o mare parte din corespondenta.
Jane a studiat la Oxford si mai tarziu a urmat cursurile unei institutii in Reading. La inceputul anilor 1800, doi dintre fratii lui Jane s-au inrolat in marina si au luptat in razboaiele lui Napoleon. De altfel, unul dintre romanele scrise Jane, Mansfield Park, a fost influentat de aceasta etapa a vietii sale.  Dupa moartea tatalui ei in 1805, Jane sora si mama sa s-au intors in Hampshire. In 1809 fratele ei, Edward, le invita sa locuiasca pe timpul verii in resedinta de la Chawton. Aici Jane avea sa produca cele mai valoroase lucrari din cariera sa.

Romanele lui Jane Austen
Romanele sunt reflectia perspectivei ei asupra vietii. Si-a petrecut cea mai mare parte a vietii criticata de anumite clase sociale. Cei mai apropiati prieteni erau de fapt cei din familie sau cei din aceeasi clasa sociala. Nu este deloc surprinzator de ce majoritatea romanelor ei sunt centrate pe 2, 3 familii din clasele mijlocii.
Principala tema tratata de Jane in romane este problema obtinerii unui mariaj convenabil. De altfel, casatoria era o incercare deosebit de dificila in acea perioada. Consideratiile financiare reprezentau parametrii esentiali in incheierea casatoriilor. Ca autoare, Jane satiriza adesea aceste motivatii financiare. Spre exemplu, in „Mandrie si Prejudecata”, mama este ridicularizata pentru ambitia ei de a-si casatori fiica pentru o remuneratie financiara maxima. Jane Austen nu s-a casatorit niciodata. In afara unor flirturi inofensive, Jane a ramas singura si nu s-a aratat foarte interesata de un posibil mariaj, spre deosebire de majoritatea personajelor sale.
Jane Austen s-a remarcat prin abilitatea de a patrunde in interiorul caractererelor si naturii relatiilor umane. Marele aport pe care l-a adus literaturii se traduce prin redefinirea rolului si aspiratiilor femeilor apartinand clasei sociale de mijloc din care facea parte. Prin satirizarea conventiilor sociale, lucrarile lui Jane Austen au contribuit la eliminarea stereotipurilor privind aspiratiile femeilor din acea vreme.
Romanele ei au devenit populare inca din timpul vietii. Unul dintre cei mai puternici sustinatori ai romanelor sale a fost un alt scriitor remarcabil, Walter Scott.
Regele George IV i-a cerut lui Jane ca unul dintre romanele sale sa-i fie dedicate. „Emma” este, prin urmare” rezultatul dorintei regelui, desi Jane nu s-a limitat in intregime la preferintele regelui.
Jane Austen a murit in 1816 la doar 41 de ani. Viata i-a fost curmata de boala Addison, o maladie care se manifesta prin dereglarea glandei suprarenale.
I-au fost dedicate doua muzee:
– The Jane Austen Centre in Bath
– The Jane Austen`s House Museum, Hampshire, acolo unde a locuit in perioada  1809 – 1816.
In 2005 „Mandrie si Prejudecata” a fost votat „Cel mai bun roman Britanic din toate timpurile” intr-un sondaj efectuat de BBC. De asemenea, Jane face parte din „Top 100 Britanici Remarcabili” si figureaza intre cele 50 de „Femei care au schimbat lumea”.

A disparut ‘Emma’ cu subtitrare deocamdata din Youtube

In schimb, se mai gaseste Emma, in Limba Engleza cu subtitrare in Limba Portugheza. VIDEO by Lilly Yehoshua

Part 1

Part 2

What do we know about Mormonism? Apparently not much…

I have subsequently added 2 useful links here for anyone interested in learning more about the doctrine that Mormons hold to. (04/28/2012):

  1. One is form the Gospel Coalition here, explaining some of the differences between Christianity and Mormonism
  2. and the second is a full study, from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministries here

Since I have had some encounters, some very strange ones at that with some Mormons, or seekers of Mormonism (I say seeker because they do not know much about their own religion), I have come to the conclusion that I need to understand Mormonism myself before I can engage in any conversation). The truth is that as much as I have a huge interest in reading about doctrines and the differences of doctrine of different denominations (among other reading interests) I do not relish reading about strange tales of denominations or religions where strange and sinful practices occur (i.e. occultism, polygamy, exaltation of men to god stature). In looking around and reading what is out there on the internet I am seeing a lot of comments mirroring this statement: „If not for their stance on polygamy, Mormons are just like any other Christian group who believe in Jesus Christ just like the Christians do.” WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

Historical, orthodox Christianity believes Jesus Christ is not only the Son of God, but that He is God and part of the trinity and that Jesus Christ coexisted eternally with God (that is before the earth was even created). Just for starters: According to Mormons (their president-Hinckley who wrote their doctrine- believe that Jesus is the offspring of God and his goddess wife and also the brother of Satan.

From the CARM website:

In Mormonism, Jesus is a creation, the product of relations between god and his goddess wife who used to be people from another world (McConkie, Bruce, Mormon Doctrine, p. 192, 321, 516, 589).   Jesus is the literal spirit brother of the devil and of you and I (McConkie, p. 192, 589).  Also, in Mormon theology, God has a body of flesh and bones (Doctrine & Covenants 130:22) as does his wife and together they produce spirit offspring in heaven who inhabit human bodies on earth.

Very few, if any, of the ‘different’ Mormon doctrines are found in their Standard Works:  the Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and The Pearl of Great Price.  Rather, they are taught by Mormons of high standing:  prophets, apostles, members of the 70 Quorum.  McConkie, for example, was a member of the 70’s Quorum, a very high ranking Mormon and wrote the book, Mormon Doctrine, from which much of the documentation for this is taken.

Even President Hinckley, the prophet and revelator of the Mormon church, has publicly declared that the Jesus of Mormonism and traditional Christianity are not the same.

The following information is taken from CARM apologetics website and you can access the full article here –

I will just post a comparison chart here:

The Mormon Jesus The Christian Jesus
  1. The literal son of god and his goddess wife begotten in the pre-existence.
  2. The brother of all spirits born in heaven in the premortal existence.
  3. One of 3 gods in the godhead.
  4. The Trinity is three separate gods.
  5. First one to receive a spirit body.
  6. Atoned for sin on the cross and in the garden of Gethsemane.
  1. Not the literal son of god and his goddess wife.
  2. Not the brother of all spirits born in heaven in a premortal existence.
  3. Not one of 3 gods in the godhead.
  4. The Trinity is 3 persons in one God.
  5. Was always spirit from eternity.
  6. Atoned for sin on the cross alone.

This brief comparison should help you see the difference between the two.  Jesus cannot be both the literal son of god and his goddess wife and not the literal begotten son.  He cannot be both one of 3 gods, and not one of 3 gods.  They are different.  In fact, it would be a lot easier if the Mormons called him by a different name.  For example, Bolok would be good.   Bolok is one of three gods, but Jesus is not. etc.  That way, it would be a lot easier to tell them apart.

Mormonism definitely does not teach the same Jesus as Christianity.

The entire article is also available in Spanish at the bottom of the Web page at

(5) Martyn Lloyd-Jones – On Schism (5th February 1961)

Pentru traducere automata, fa click aici – Romanian

Read Part 1 here – a history

Read Part 2 here – 1962 Address by Lloyd-Jones

Read Part 3 here – An accounting from those who attended

Read Part 4 here – What the newspapers reported

 From via Reformation 21 blog, Eryl Davies: This article attempts to summarize the main teaching and challenge of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the important subject of schism.

Schism in the writings of Lloyd-Jones

The 5th February 1961- One of his sermons based on Ephesians 6:10-13 dealt with the subject of schism. He maintained that churches eager to adhere believingly to Scripture faced a major problem: „How are we to draw the line between allowing heresy and apostasy on the one hand, and being guilty of schism on the other?”.1 Lloyd- Jones was clear concerning the answer and this can be expressed in the following way:

  1. Only Christians who are agreed on fundamental doctrines can be guilty of schism.
  2. Schism involves the division of Christians concerning non-essential or secondary matters.
  3. New Testament commands concerning unity and warnings about schism are addressed only to Christians, those who enjoy Gospel unity.
  4. Evangelicals have not taken these commands and warnings seriously enough and ecumenism has exposed this inconsistency.
  5. The New Testament requires a unity of churches, not merely individuals or movements; Evangelicals need to express their claim to unity in a meaningful way at church level.June 1963 – A major address based on Haggai 1 and given to the Westminster

Fraternal touched again on the present situation, the evangelical commitment to movements and the failure of this strategy. He then addressed key questions, namely, the nature and marks of the Church before discussing „the true nature of schism”.2 He does not discuss the latter subject in detail as his intention was „simply raising it as an issue”.3 Here are the main points:

The Protestant Reformers were not guilty of schism when they left the Church of Rome for they separated themselves from apostasy.
1 Corinthians „is the locus classicus with regard to this matter”. Schism is „division in the true visible Church about matters that are not sufficient to justify division and separation”, e.g. personalities, learning, observance o f days and meats, variations in spiritual gifts. The „sin of schism occurs when such people allow themselves to be divided from one another for inadequate causes and reasons”.4

„The trouble has been always that men have tended to approach schism in terms of the existing state of the churches instead of taking it right back to the New Testament conception of the Church and asking: Are we dividing that? We have allowed the opposition to govern our thinking on this question of schism, and…put ourselves into a false position. What I should ask myself is this … Am I guilty of dividing the truly spiritual New Testament Church?”5

June 1965 -Westminster Fellowship address from Psalm 74. „Two years ago”, Lloyd-Jones declared, „I tried to make a statement. I appealed for unity, a unity at the church level .. .I was convinced two years ago that many were not convinced of schism and so should be given the opportunity to be convicted…”.6 He asks: „Is there any hope of evangelical unity?…My conclusion is that there is no hope at all at the church level…because there is no agreement among Evangelicals…”.7

18th October 1966- NAE address in which Lloyd-Jones discusses schism after considering the nature of the Church. His view of the sin of schism is unchanged: „It is division among people who are agreed about the essentials and the centralities, but who separate over secondary and less important matters…that is the only definition ofschism which can claim to be Biblical…the only people…who are guilty of the sin of schism are Evangelicals”.8

July 1967- Westminster Fellowship address majoring on the unity to be sought on the part of those opposed to ecumenism. Here Lloyd-Jones warned of a danger because while Ecumenists go for minimum and ambiguous doctrinal content, Evangelicals „tend to become too precise…the opposite extreme…”.9 Major essential doctrines for him included the sole authority of Scripture in faith and practice, the Trinity, the devil and evil powers, the plan of redemption, the person and work of Christ, man in sin, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification by faith alone, sanctification. The non-essentials („not so important as to divide us”) included election, views on baptism, church policy, assurance,

prophecy and gifts. „We must not break fellowship”,10 he warned.
13th November 1968- An address by Lloyd-Jones to the BEC on What is the

Church?. 11 The uniqueness, spirituality and unity of the true Church „makes schism a terrible sin. It is not merely that you disagree with others: it is that you are dividing Christ, you are dividing a body, you are dividing a family. And so the apostle brings out his mighty powers of ridicule in 1 Corinthians 12…For brethren who are agreed about the essentials of the Gospel, and who are sharing the same life, to be divided by history, tradition, or any consideration, is the sin of schism, and it is a terrible sin”.12

4th November 1970- The Doctor’s theme at this BEC conference was Wrong divisions and True Unity13 and he distinguished between separation and schism. Again, he turned to 1 Corinthians and showed how the Corinthian Christians had a defective understanding of the Church and failed „to draw the line properly between” essentials and those matters which are „important but not essential”. 14 He nescribes the Corinthians as „standing and dividing on carnal matters”,15 „intellectualism”16 and „false spirituality”.17 Lloyd-Jones is adamant that the essentials „on which me must stand”18 include the Scriptures,19 the Fall,20 God’s plan of redemption21 and the Person of the Lord.22 On these doctrines we must stand „unflinchingly… even unto death, but be very careful about anything else you stand on, lest you become guilty of the sin of schism and offend a dear brother for whom Christ died. I f you think he is mistaken, patiently, quietly, prayerfully, try to instruct him and to help him. And as you value your own conscience and always try to obey it, remember that he has got a conscience also and you must not cause him to offend it. Let us love one another. Let us bear with one another but hold the centralities, the first things, boldly, courageously and unflinchingly, together”.23

Dr Eryl Davies is the Principal of the Evangelical Theological College of Wales

I have been in the ministry and trying to preach now for getting on for forty-four years. I have seen strange things in the life of the churches, but I have never known such confusion as prevails at the present time. Of course, those of us who belong to this Evangelical Council are not a bit surprised that there is confusion among people who are not evangelical. They cannot but be confused. Indeed they are not evangelical because they are confused. So that does not surprise us. But, even in that realm, the confusion is more and more confounded than I have ever known it.

But what should be of particular concern to us is that we have to confess, if we are honest, that there is some confusion amongst us. This is serious…

This is important because the greatest need in the world tonight is for a united evangelical message. It is the only hope for mankind. It is the only hope for the world and, in general, it is the only hope for the church. The people are confused, utterly confused. All their famous ‘nostrums’ fail to give them healing. All the prophecies of the false prophets have been falsified. They are all just disillusioned. That is the real meaning of this calamitous drug-taking and alcoholism. I believe the world is waiting for an authoritative statement. And it can only have it from those who take a scriptural view of the way of salvation-that is from evangelicals. That is why it is so urgently and vitally important that there should be no confusion amongst us but that we should speak with a united and a certain voice concerning these vital matters.

DM Lloyd-Jones, Wrong Divisions and True Unity, in Unity in Truth

Foundations 37 – Autumn 1996.tiff…/37_27.pdf

Perseverenta artistica – Tu ai asa pasiune?

Ah, cati dintre noi am fost asa cand am invatat la un instrument ? Mai ales daca noi ne-am dorit instrumentul si nu am fost fortati de parinti sa cantam la instrument.  Oare de ce nu avem aceeasi pasiune pentru lucruri bune, ziditoare, sfinte?

Acesti doi sunt astazi adulti, dar acum 5-6 ani au devenit faimosi cu vocile lor in Concertul pentru 2 voci.  Uploaded by  on Oct 6, 2007 (French song)

Alegerea partenerului de viata + 2 poezii – Viorel Iuga la Biserica Penticostala Albini

Pastorul Viorel Iuga recita doua poezii, canta corul (05:40) mesajul fratelui Iuga (08:40). Drumul normal in intemeierea unei familii binecuvantate.

Introducere: Poezie

Sunt dependent de har in existenta
Am viata deoarece El a decis
Indiferent prin ce si cate-oi trece
Razbate-voi atat cat mi-este scris.

Sunt dependent de har in manturie
Am fost salvat prin bunatatea Sa
Merg pas cu pas pe calea cea ingusta
Doar cata vreme ma va indruma.

Sunt dependent de har in marturie
Dau gust si luminez doar cat mi-e dat
Nu pot fi cetatuie-n varf de munte
Daca de sursa m-am deconectat.

De altfel sunt dependent de har in orice lucru
Gandesc, vorbesc sau fac ceva frumos
Numai atunci cand ascultand de Tatal
Ma lupt sa fiu asemeni lui Hristos.

Astazi, cand foarte multi crestini alearga
Trudesc, se lupta, dar multi in zadar
Nu ma bazez pe propriile-mi forte
Aleg sa fiu un dependent de har.

Nu stiu eact, dar sigur vine ziua
Cand eu voi trece al cerului hotar
Atunci o voi striga cat pot mai tare
Ajunge-acas un dependent de har!

Si-apoi incununat cu harfa-n mana
Plimbandu-ma prin cer cu pasul rar
Voi indemna pe sfinti si pe Clujen, si pe voi fiecare…
Dati slava Domnului, sunteti aici prin har.

Uploaded by  on Sep 26, 2011 more videos at



Ma furisez in camera de sue
Te vad slujind ucenici plini de sine
Spaland picioarele ca robul supus
Isuse esti aicea pentru mine.

Pasesc cu umilinta-n Ghetsimani
Vreau sa fiu cat mai aproape de Tine
Te vad prins si legat de dusmani
Isuse esti aicea pentru mine.

Pe lespezile reci din Gabata
Te vad batjocorit de maini haine
Chiar daca vinovata este gloata
Isuse esti aicea pentru mine.

Cu trupul vremelnic din lut
Urci crucea stiind tot ce vine
Pe calea durerii esti frant si-ai cazut
Isuse esti aicea pentru mine.

Tintuit in maini si-n picioare
Te rogi cu adanci, mari suspine
Rabdand, desi rana te doare
Isuse esti aicea pentru mine.

Aloia pe trupul infrant
Nu mai poate durerea s-aline
Esti mort si-asezat in mormant
Isuse esti aicea pentru mine.

In revarsatul de zori
Cand bate vant lin pe coline
Te-ntalnesc Doamne viu in haina de nori
Isuse esti aicea pentru mine.

Cutreier viitorul slavit
Vad Ierusalimul nou care vine
Te vad incoronat Mire iubit
Isuse, Ti revii si pentru mine.

Alte articole/video

Washington Post: Planned Parenthood- 40 days of prayer for (more) abortion

Will God be mocked? Psalm 14:1-4 The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good. The Lordlooks down from heaven on the children of man, to see if there are any who understand, who seek after God. They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one. Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread and do not call upon the Lord?

from the Washington Post  04/18/2012

A prayer for abortion?

By Jordan Sekulow and Matthew Clark

Pro-life advocates have long complained that Planned Parenthood, the country’s largest abortion provider, worships at the altar of abortion, but did you know that the abortion industry actually prays for abortion?

Perversely reminiscent of 40 day pro-life prayer vigils, Planned Parenthood in Humboldt County, Ca., is promoting it’s own “40 days of prayer,” March 18th through April 27th, for abortion. This is not their usually disguised promotion of abortion as “preventative care,” “family planning,” or “contraceptive services.” No, they throw those typical euphemisms out and directly pray for abortion.

A prayer guide found on ,40 Days of Prayer Supporting Women Everywhere , encourages pro-abortion supporters to offer prayers of “thanks for abortion providers” and the “sacred care” they provide.

Each day, Planned Parenthood suggests a prayer, for example:

· “We give thanks for the doctors who provide quality abortion care.”

· We pray for a cloud of gentleness to surround every abortion facility.”

· We pray for all the staff at abortion clinics around the nation. May they be daily confirmed in the sacred care that they offer women.”

Some of the prayers, like those above, are for the abortionists. Others are for all “women to access . . . abortion,” and one is to “give thanks and celebrate that abortion is still safe and legal.”

Still other prayers are against pro-life advocates. They pray that women on the way to have an abortion would be “shielded” from the lifesaving message of pro-life sidewalk counselors and “give thanks for abortion escorts who guide women safely through the hostile gauntlets of protesters.” In another, “we pray for women who have been made afraid of their own power [of choice, i.e. abortion] by their religion. May they learn to reject fear and live bravely.”

One of the most outrageous of these pro-abortion prayers actually urges people to “pray for the families we’ve chosen. May they know the blessing of choice.” What about the babies who weren’t “chosen”?

Of course, none of this should be surprising when you take a look at the group who penned these prayers, Faith Aloud. Among Faith Aloud’s board members is the infamous partial-birth abortion doctor LeRoy Carhart.

While admitting that aborted babies are “our children—even those we decide not to bring into the world,” Faith Aloud cannot debunk the claim that abortion is murder. Faith Aloud’s Web site states, “When you hear something over and over, like ‘abortion is murder’, it can get into your head—like a commercial. But if you really believed that abortion was the same as murder you probably wouldn’t even be considering it.”

All Planned Parenthood and Faith Aloud can do is rationalize the taking of another human’s life under the guise of prayer.

But apparently, these prayers are being used by the entire abortion industry. Faith Aloud even wrote us after we at the ACLJ initially exposed Planned Parenthood’s prayer guide to clarify, “Independent abortion providers (non-Planned Parenthood facilities) have been using these prayers for years.”

While the prayers themselves are shocking, the true outrage continues to be the yearly slaughter of millions of unborn babies. No matter how you try to spiritualize it or rationalize, it’s just plain wrong, and we will continue fighting for life.

Jordan Sekulow is Executive Director of the American Center for Law & Justice and writes for On Faith’s blogging network at the Washington Post. Matthew Clark is an attorney for the ACLJ.

Who decides who gets to live or die? Hitler? ProAbortionists?

What is Conscience? that faculty of the mind, or inborn sense of right and wrong, by which we judge of the moral character of human conduct. It is common to all men. Like all our other faculties, it has been perverted by the Fall (John 16:2; Acts 26:9; Rom. 2:15). It is spoken of as „defiled” (Titus 1:15), and „seared” (1 Tim. 4:2). A „conscience void of offence” is to be sought and cultivated (Acts 24:16; Rom. 9:1; 2 Cor. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; 1 Pet. 3:21)

If you haven’t yet seen Ray Comfort’s „180 movie”, you really should. He starts by asking young people what they would do in different scenarios if they were played out under Hitler’s regime. Then, he takes the same logic these young people used in giving their answers to his challenging questions and applies it to abortion. This video is enlightening in 2 ways: 1) It is surprising how many people do not even know who Hitler was, therefore how can they know about the atrocities he committed? And even if you knew about those atrocities of the holocaust, I challenge you to look at the footage displayed in this video at a couple of places and see what it does to your revulsion at such horrific violence as was perpetrated during the Holocaust. 2) It is even more surprising how young people’s minds are so brainwashed with the way they perceive abortion that a couple of them are shocked at their own conclusions towards the end of the video.

Below this video is another video, it’s actually from 2010, however it illustrates a point. A clergy person is not allowed to pray outside an abortion clinic and is subsequently arrested, while inside a doctor takes human lives and has the backing of the police department outside to keep them as far away as possible in order to not sway any young woman in any way possible from committing this act.

Pastor arrested outside Washington D.C. Planned Parenthood

(4) Martyn Lloyd-Jones – The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches at New Delhi – What the Newspapers and Books Reported 18th October 1966

Foundations a journal of Evangelical theology for the British Evangelical Council (18th October 1966 edition)
What some papers and books have said Eryl Davies

Evangelicals -Leave your denominations” was the startling headline on the front page of The Christian weekly newspaper on the 21st October 1966. While quoting extensively from the address ofDr Lloyd-Jones, the article was not strictly accurate in places. For example, part of the opening sentence of the article was: „An impassioned appeal to Evangelicals in Britain to leave the major denominations and to form a united Church was made by Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones…”.As we have seen in earlier articles, Lloyd-Jones did not suggest or desire „a united Church”; his appeal was for Evangelicals to come together in a loose fellowship or association of churches. The article states that „many people to whom our reporter spoke after the meeting thought that Dr Lloyd-Jones was right in his arguments, but that nothing would happen unless men like the Rev. JRW Stott took the lead”.

David Winter, reporting the Assembly also in The Life of Faith of 27th October emphasised how the public rally „in dramatic fashion, dragged into the open a subject normally avoided in evangelical debate- secession. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones made an eloquent plea to Evangelicals to leave their denominations and join a United Evangelical Church and the Chairman, the Rev. John Stott, publicly (firmly but politely) disagreed with him…”. The Baptist Times (27th October) was more forthright, reporting „A sharp clash of views…with Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones seeming to be encouraging Evangelicals to secede from their denominations and the Rev. John Stott challenging his address by claiming that division was not the way forward.. .it was clear that Evangelicals are divided theologically…”.

A more supportive and accurate report was given in the English Churchman (28th October). Lloyd-Jones, the article emphasised, „was not putting forward some negative scheme into which we are to be reluctantly forced, but rather was pointing us to the glorious opportunity of taking positive action because we realise we ought to if we are to be true to our evangelical convictions…Anglican Evangelicals would appear, on the evidence of the Assembly to be the most intransigent on this matter…But is it not a misunderstanding to look at this problem only as one of secession? Does entry into a Scriptural union with other Christians deserve that name?…Who is really giving a definite lead in the Church of England at this time? Who will define the line beyond which we will not go? We have already surrendered on a number of issues which in earlier days would never have been accepted…”. This is well said and even more true of the situation in more recent years. It was the Evangelical Times from its launch in 1967 which championed the principles which Lloyd-Jones had identified and argued.

Christianity Today! in 1990 devoted twelve full pages to the subject of The Remaking of English Evangelicalism but only four sentences to what it calls the „major public showdown” in 1966 when, after Lloyd-Jones’s address, a „surprised” John Stott „rose and rebuked Lloyd-Jones and rallied Anglican Evangelicals to their churchly duty’? Once again, the authors misunderstood the message ofLloyd-Jones by claiming that instead of addressing the subject of unity he „called instead for Evangelicals to leave the historic churches”. This is grossly misleading and inaccurate.

From this sample ofChristian newspapers which reported the 1966 meeting, I want to turn to a sample of more recent books and note how these authors regarded the significance and nature of the Doctor’s message on that occasion.

In his readable Five Evangelical Leaders, 3 Christopher Catherwood devotes nearly four pages to this event which he calls 1966: Crossing the Rubicon.4 He refers to „a change of emphasis” in his grandfather’s thinking concerning the doctrine of the Church, but, as we have documented in earlier articles, this new emphasis was not sudden or unexpected but had been apparent for some time prior to 1966. One wonders how well the author understood the background to the 1966 address. For example, he claims that the Evangelical Alliance „had no idea how explosive the Doctor intended to be…”5 and refers to Lloyd-Jones’s „vision of a United Evangelical Church”.6 Later, Catherwood sees the „tragedy ofthe split” as being divided over what was „essentially an ecclesiastical issue”.7 But the prior and major issue for Lloyd-Jones was the Gospel itself; it was from the Gospel that he insisted on the importance ofthe nature and unity ofthe Church. Soteriology and ecclesiology were inextricably bound up, not only in the thinking of Lloyd-Jones but also in the New Testament itself. Kenneth Hylson-Smith’s useful book Evangelicals in the Church of England 1734-1984 is disappointing in its treatment of 18th October 1966. Barely two pages are devoted to the subject9 and, unfortunately, it is based on secondary sources, primarily Christopher Catherwood’s Five Evangelical Leaders. 10 The author is correct in claiming that the effect of the disagreement between Stott and Lloyd-Jones „was immediate and long-standing”.11

Even less space is given to the subject by DW Bebbington in his Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s. 12 For Bebbington, this incident was „to dramatise a fracture in the evangelical world”,13 but the call for Evangelicals to leave their mixed denominational churches „was dismissed by nearly all those in the Church of England as being… ‘nothing short of hare-brained’ and in other mixed denominations Lloyd-Jones was little heeded”.

As expected, Hywel R Jones provides a detailed account of the „Doctor’s relationship with the British Evangelical Council” in Unity in Truth14 which is a collection of addresses given by Lloyd-Jones in BEC sponsored meetings between 1967-1979. This is a valuable introduction which throws light on the „Doctor’s thinking on the subject of unity as well as his decision to involve himself in the work and witness of the BEC”. One paragraph is reproduced here because of its helpful reference to the now famous 1966 address:

It is worth pointing out that not once in this address did the Doctor use the terms „separate/secede”. His call was to associate or unite. While it is granted that this necessarily involved secession, the basis of the call was the Gospel, the scope of the call was to those who professed to believe the Gospel and the purpose in view was the spread of the Gospel. It was therefore neither schismatic nor exclusivist, but truly Christian and evangelical. In addition, as the Doctor pointed out, it was timely because in the wider setting denominational attachments were being questioned and new alignments were being considered. Should not Evangelicals, of all people, take up the challenge, notwithstanding the difficulties, and seize the opportunity to stand together for God’s truth?

This address, as well known, met with an immediate negative reaction. The positive response surfaced later, most noticeably in the Luther meeting. On 1st November 1967 over 2,500 people gathered in Westminster Chapel to commemorate the 450th anniversary of Luther’s promulgation of his Ninety-Five Theses. 15

Hywel Jones concludes that „It is still the case that the BEC is the only body of churches in the United Kingdom which ‘cannot, on grounds of conscience, identify with that ecumenicity which lacks an evangelical basis’ .It takes this position because it stands for the unity of all those churches which believe the one and only Gospel which saves”.16

Who Are the Evangelicals?17 is an interesting account by Derek Tidball „tracing the roots of today’s movements” in which he also shows the varied spectrum of contemporary evangelical belief and practice. Regrettably, Tidball only devotes three brief sentences to the 1966 incident.18 He does remind us, however, that „Evangelicals in other mainline denominations have trodden a path similar to Anglican Evangelicals. Among the Baptists, Mainstream was formed; among Methodists, Headway and among the United Reformed Church, Gear. In each, Evangelicals have become more committed to their denominations”. 19

In his autobiography entitled A Man Under Authority,20 Leith Samuel provides some interesting background and insights regarding the 1966 address together with the response. 21 He describes it as „that tragic night for British evangelicalism” and „a tragic parting of the ways…We needed unity at Church level but it was torn from our grasp”.22 Leith Samuel insists that Lloyd-Jones „was not concerned primarily about changing structures. It was the purity of the Gospel that was of paramount importance to him”. What Lloyd-Jones longed to see was „an umbrella” large enough to cover Anglican and Free Church Evangelicals.

Alister McGrath also refers to the 1966 event, albeit briefly, in his Evangelicalism & the Future ofChristianity.23 McGrath claims that it „was widely seen to centre on the issue of separatism”.24 Again, McGrath is another writer who partly misunderstands the call of Lloyd-Jones in his 1966 address; for McGrath, it was a „passionate call” for Evangelicals in mixed denominations to „form a denomination of their own”.25 McGrath is correct in viewing the National Evangelical Anglican Congress at Keele in April 1967 as having „endorsed and consolidated”26 Stott’s opposition to Lloyd-Jones. He continues: „It sealed this development and marks the beginning of the positive role of evangelicalism within the Church of England”. Keele was determinative and is „widely regarded as marking the end of a numerically significant ‘separatist’ party within Anglican evangelicalism…”.

Over the past couple o f years, I have been interested to meet Christians, even academics, who have spoken disparagingly oflain Murray’s two-volumed biography ofMartyn Lloyd- Jones.27 To me, their response is a superficial and prejudiced one. Allow me to reply to their criticism. Murray’s biography is an official one, based largely on primary sources, and written by a man who knew Lloyd-Jones extremely well. He had served under and alongside the Doctor and then remained in close contact with him over the years. A competent historian and possessing an excellent grasp of the contemporary evangelical situation in the United Kingdom, Murray is eminently suited to write the biography of Lloyd-Jones. The second volume especially is „a primary text on evangelicalism in the twentieth century”.28 And this

can be easily substantiated. No other serious book, for example, examines the background, context, significance and consequences of Lloyd-Jones’s 1966 address in such detail or depth as Murray does in this second volume. Earlier chapters such as Unity: Ecumenical or Evangelical (pp. 427-450), Conversations and Journeys (pp. 453-471), Cross-Winds (pp. 472-492) and 1965:The Approaching Crisis (pp. 495-511) are well researched and they are invaluable in providing a meaningful background to the three crucial chapters dealing with 1966 and the assessment of the controversy.29

In his assessment, Murray counters the criticism that Lloyd-Jones was responsible for „dividing Evangelicals” by referring to the latter’s view that the main denominations were in an extremely serious theological and religious condition not „seen in England before”30 and that Anglican Evangelicals had „deliberately introduced a new policy on ecumenism”Y He shows how Stott had changed his position by referring to his former view expressed in his 1958 publication What Christ Thinks ofthe Church:32 „We cannot have Christian fellowship with those who deny the divinity of Christ’s person or the satisfactoriness of His work on the cross for our salvation…to preach any other gospel than the Gospel of Christ’s saving grace is to deserve Paul’s anathema…”.33 Another criticism of Lloyd-Jones’s 1966 address that Murray considers is that he was creating a „new sectarianism”34 and an exclusive form of unity. However; Murray shows effectively that Lloyd-Jones wanted „a third altemative”,35 „a way forward…more honouring to God than an acceptance of the existing conditions”. The Doctor, we are reminded, „frankly accepted the limitations of his own understanding”;36 he opted finally for a wider unity through the BEC „largely because, when he urged others to take on a more active role, none came forward with any alternative”. He himself did not want to assume the role of leader in the new wider association of churches. Was it a lack of interest in this aspect? Possibly, but „in part, also”, insists Murray, „it was because he knew that the essential need at this stage…was for on-going reformation and a true revival in all churches. Secession, as such, was no solution”_37

In Murray’s view, Lloyd-Jones was „open to some criticism”38 in this controversy. First o f all, Murray thinks that the argument in places depended over-much on the Doctor’s interpretation of the contempary situation so that it „looked more like a matter ofjudgement than ofBiblical principle”. This, however, is open to debate but Lloyd-Jones put no pressure at all on individuals to secede. In my own experience, he discouraged me initially from seceding and wanted to know precisely which Biblical principles I was seeking to honour. It is also a fact that Lloyd-Jones left it to individual ministers and churches to decide the correct and wisest time for secession.

A second criticism in Murray’s opinion is that the lack of a clear plan in which to express this wider unity of churches post-1966 „had regrettable consequences”.39 In this context, Murray sees that the question of „schism” was complex and somewhat difficult to relate to for Lloyd-Jones challenged „the adequacy”40 of an inter-denominational evangelical unity expressed through an organisation like the Evangelical Alliance. This, however, served to focus „attention upon the alternative…” envisaged with the ability to exclude or discipline those who were in error. Furthermore, Murray suggests that on the Doctor’s view of schism, those who stayed outside the BEC were thereby guilty of the charge. „Some damage might have been averted”, Murray thinks, „if the alternative unity presented…in 1967hadbeenunderstoodtobemorefluidandopen…”41 andiftheDoctor had been less „hurried than he would otherwise have been”.42

Murray’s assessment, ofcourse, is itselfopen to criticism but I want to confine myself to two observations. One, it was notthe Doctor’s Welshness orinterpretation of the situation or his understanding of the sin of schism which were at fault, but possibly his and our failure to appreciate the stranglehold of Anglican sub-culture on its leaders thus making it difficult for them to contemplate the possibility of working outside their denomination. As Alan Gibson rightly points out: „With hindsight, most of us did not fully understand how strong was the grip of the ecclesiastical sub-cultures in which we had been brought


up. The 1967 Keele Conference showed how hard it was for Gospel men in the Church of England to contemplate working in any other context. Subsequent attempts to reduce the height of denominational walls, even between wholly evangelical free church groups, were not conspicuously successful. Some who agreed that the Doctor’s appeal was based on Scripture principles found reasons not to act upon it”.43

My second observation is that the Doctor’s 1966 appeal was rejected by Stott and other leaders, including EA officers, because they disagreed with its message. To blame Lloyd-Jones, and him alone, is to fly in the face of the facts. Again, I quote Alan Gibson who was present on the occasion and who attempted to submit a motion the following morning proposing discussion of the practical implications arising from the first meeting. „To our huge disappointment”, Gibson writes, „the organising committee had decided that no such motions would be accepted. Responsibility for closing down any real consideration of steps towards evangelical church unity does not belong to John Stott alone. It lies also with the 1966 officers of the Evangelical Alliance who changed the advertised programme and denied the Assembly, set up for that very purpose, any opportunity for practical consideration of the issues the Doctor had raised”.44

A reference to two other recent publications conclude this article. Clive Calver and Rob Warner in their Together We Stand, 45 a volume marking the 150th anniversary of the Evangelical Alliance, deal with the 1966 division in a disappointing way. Once again some of the facts are wrong: for example, the 1966 address ofLloyd-Jones is supposed to have argued for „a single united evangelical church”.46 Butthat is clearly wrong. Nor is it helpful or accurate to speak ofLloyd-Jones’s „impassioned eloquence … in the heat of the moment”.47 I am afraid that even in this book Lloyd-Jones is pictured as the culprit who shattered evangelical unity in Britain in 1966. When will those writing on this incident be at least fair to the facts? Please, please give us history and not fiction.

The second and final publication I refer to is For Such a Time as This: Perspectives on Evangelicalism, Past, Present & Future48 which commemorates the founding of the Evangelical Alliance in 1846 and also serves as a tribute to Gilbert Kirby on his 80th birthday. Two chapters are immediately relevant to our theme. Peter Lewis writes on Renewal, Recovery & Growth: 1966 onwards and reports accurately the thrust of the Doctor’s message. A useful outline is provided of later developments, namely, NEAC 1967, emergence of Tear Fund in 1968, Berlin 1966 and Lausanne 1974, the Evangelical Missionary Alliance, UCCF, Spring Harvest- Keswick, Evangelical Leaders Conference, evangelical unity and co-operative evangelism. Another relevant chapter is AIan Gibson’s The Role ofSeparation. The title is misleading for it is a consideration of „principles of separation and cooperation among today’s churches”.49 The chapter deserves careful study.

This sampling of papers and books which refer to the 1966 address by Lloyd-Jones is now complete. Other books like Chosen Vessels could have been referred to but, hopefully, the sample has been adequate to stimulate you to think and read some of the primary sources. But, please, get the facts right and then wrestle prayerfully as well as Biblically with the matters raised. We all still have much to learn from the Doctor’s 1966 message.


  1. 1  Christianity Today, February 5, 1990, volume 34, no. 2, pp. 25-36
  2. 2  Idem, p. 33
  3. 3  Christopher Catherwood, Five Evangelical Leaders, Hodder & Stoughton, 1987 ·
  4. 4  Idem, p 83


Domnul e pastorul meu (Psalm 23) – Cristian Dragomir

Psalmul 23

1(O cîntare a lui David.) Domnul este Păstorul meu: nu voi duce lipsă de nimic.    2El mă paşte în păşuni verzi, şi mă duce la ape de odihnă;

3îmi înviorează sufletul, şi mă povăţuieşte pe cărări drepte, din pricina Numelui Său.
4Chiar dacă ar fi să umblu prin valea umbrei morţii, nu mă tem de niciun rău, căci Tu eşti cu mine. Toiagul şi nuiaua Ta mă mîngîie.
5Tu îmi întinzi masa în faţa protivnicilor mei; îmi ungi capul cu untdelemn, şi paharul meu este plin de dă peste el.
6Da, fericirea şi îndurarea mă vor însoţi în toate zilele vieţii mele, şi voi locui în Casa Domnului pînă la sfîrşitul zilelor mele.

Domnul e pastorul meu

Uploaded by  on Jan 26, 2010 Christian Dragomir, Biserica LOGOS Ploiesti, 17 ianuarie 2010

Facebook: Vorbiti intre voi…. Ce ai tu mai de pret in casa ta?


Judecatile DOMNULUI sint adevarate,toate sint drepte.Ele sint mai de prêt decit aurul,decit mult aur curat;sint mai dulci decit mierea,decit picurul din faguri”.

Desigur ca in lumea aceasta mare daca vei privi,ai sa observi multe lucruri pretioase, aur, argint, platina, pietre scumpe si cind acestea sint folosite la decorarea altor lucruri ele au o valoare inestimabila, uneori de invidiat. Nu de mult am vazut la TV NEWS aici ca indienii construiesc astazi cele mai ieftine masini din lume. Dar s-au apucat si o masina de aceea au imbracat-o numai in aur si diamante incit valoarea ei a ajuns la $ 15 milioane de dolari. O mare valoare pe linga celelalte.Si fiecare dintre noi avem in casa noastra lucruri de valoare. Sa nu spuneti ca nu.

Si in raport de acel lucru este cintarita viata ta inaintea lui DUMNEZEU. DOMNUL ISUS a spus: Cine iubeste pe tata, ori pe mama mai mult decit pe MINE,nu este vrednic de MINE si cine iubeste pe fiu ori pe fica mai mult decit pe MINE,nu este vrednic de MINE.

Avem in Scriptura un om care are valoare in ochii lui DUMNEZEU, el este”AVRAM”. Si din cauza ca el l-a iubit mai mult pe DUMNEZEU, DUMNEZEU l-a facut”TATAL” tuturor credinciosilor. Repet, tatal credinciosilor,nu a celor care au pazit Legea, ca de implinit n-a implinit-o nimeni. Avram a stiut care este adevarata valoare a lucrurilor si le-a asezat in ordinea adevaratei pretuiri.

Iar una dintre porunci este: Sa iubesti pe DOMNUL,DUMNEZEUL tau, din toata inima ta, cu tot cugetul tau si cu toata fiinta ta. Imi place atit de mult un verset din Scripturi care zice asa: Caci chiar daca smochinul nu va inflori, vita nu va da nici un rod, rodul maslinului va lipsi, si cimpiile nu vor da hrana ,oile vor pieri din staule si nu vor mai fi boi in grajduri. O mica paranteza astazi in grajduri sint masini de toate marcile. Eu tot ma voi bucura in DOMNUL, ma voi bucura in DUMNEZEUL mintuirii mele. Iata un om, Habacuc, care nu l-au inselat privirile niciodata si a stiut pe ce sa puna pret. Eu cel putin de multe ori am facut alegerea cu ochii nu cu inima si de fiecare data m-am inselat.

Caci Diavolul este foarte siret, lucrurile fara valoare, dar care sclipesc le pune in rafturi cit mai sus, nici sa nu fie nevoie sa te apleci. Si prin priviere ajunge la minte, de acolo la inima si uite asa ne impovaram inima cu lucruri de nimic. De aceea spunea MINTUITORUL ca: Unde e inima voastra acolo-i si comoara voastra. Comorile sint lucruri pe care trebuie sa le pretuim. Psalmistul spune in psalmul 119-127: De aceea, eu iubesc poruncile TALE, mai mult decit aurul, da, mai mult decit aurul curat. Si daca poruncile si cuvintele DOMNULUI au pret asa cum au avut ele pret in ochii multor inaintasi de ai nostri, ele ar trebui sa aiba pret si in ochii nostri.

Si daca CUVINTUL lui DUMNEZEU este mai de pret decit aurul curat atunci si judecatile DOMNULUI sint de pret. Asa cum zice in textul nostru: Ele sint mai de pret decit aurul curat, decit mult aur curat; sint mai dulci decit mierea, decit picurul din faguri. Aici continua si zice: Robul TAU primeste si el invatatura din ele; pentru cine le pazeste, rasplata este mare. Charles Spurgeon, un mare Evanghelist, a fost foarte activ in vestirea Evangheliei, in scrieri dar si in pretuirea Bibliei, adica a CUVINTULUI lui DUMNEZEU. A avut darul deosebirii lucrurilor, a stiut pe ce sa puna pret. Desi cartile sint intr-adevar scumpe si rare unele, va sta tuturor la indemina o carte: ”BIBLIA”.

Un predicator cu Biblia este ca David cu prastia si cu pietrele, bine inarmat pentru lupta. Atita vreme cit are Biblia, are izvorul din care isi poate potoli setea. In Biblie avem o intreaga Biblioteca, iar daca cineva o studiaza cu temei, va fi mai eficient, decit daca ar fi citit toate cartile din biblioteca din Alexandria (este vorba de marea biblioteca din Egipt). Ambitia noastra ar trebui sa fie sa intelegem Biblia. Ar trebui sa ne fie tot atit de cunoscuta, cum este cunoscut gospodinei acul, negustorului registrul de casa, marinarului corabia, etc,etc. Aftfel dar, ar trebui s-o cunoastem pe dinafara si pe dinlauntru, in general si in amanunt, latura istorica, invataturile, poruncile si absolute totul.

Inchei citatul .Poate ca locuiesti intr-un catun izolat, si n-ai prea mare acces la imformatii asa cum au cei de la oras, nu te necaji,”masmidia te imformeaza spunea cineva pe facebook, dar pacatul te deformeaza”. Si pentru iertare de pacate ai nevoie de DUMNEZEU. Si pe DUMNEZEU il intilnesti numai cind deschizi Biblia, prin CUVINT. Ioan spune: La inceput era CUVINTUL, si CUVINTUL era cu DUMNEZEU, si CUVINTUL era DUMNEZEU. Ai sa-ti dai seama intr-adevar cind ai sa incepi citirea ca CUVINTUL lui DUMNEZEU este mai dulce decit mierea si decit fagurul de miere. Daca n-ai o Biblie cumpara-ti una, ca,nu-i asa de scumpa, stiu ca ai in casa ta multe lucruri scumpe si care in ochii tai au valoare dar nu si in ochii lui DUMNEZEU. Si deabia atunci vei intra intr-o armonie deplina cu cerul sa intelegi ce are pret si ce nu are pret. DUMNEZEU sa tea jute sa pui pret pe ce are valoare.
*24 APRILIE 2012*

Redeeming Sex

Mark Liederbach – Redeeming Sex and Sexuality – Faculty Lecture

Mark Liederbach is Dean of Students at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. by Southeastern Seminary on Vimeo

„The paper I am presenting here today is not meant to be a definitive statement, rather a provocative one. Here’s what I mean by that. I hope to provoke ideas through my analysis of the texts in Scripture and send the students and professors into Acts 17:11 and to go back and see if what I have taught you is true. The hope is, I want to spur dialogue so we can make one other better and to the degree that this paper accurately reflects the teaching of Scripture, I want to work diligently, I hope all of us will apply it to our lives.

(3) Martyn Lloyd-Jones – The Third Assembly of the World Council of Churches at New Delhi from those that were there (Lloyd-Jones vs. John Stott)

Pentru traducere automata, fa click aici – Romanian

Read Part 1 here – a history

Read Part 2 here – 1962 Address by Lloyd-Jones

Here is a sampling of this chapter in the history of the English Churches and the debate going on between Martyn Lloyd-Jones and John Stott:

Five years before, almost to the day, I had sat in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, trembling and gripping the seat, as I heard the Doctor preach for the first time, and was rescued from the emptiness of liberal theology. Now I was gripping the chair again! Oh that we had more preachers today who could make us tremble.

The chairman, John Stott, sensed that many men were being stirred to action and feared that some Anglican clergy might leave their church. Although he had already been given a ten minute slot earlier in the meeting to state his own views, he rose, at the end of the Doctor’s address not to close the meeting, but to counter what had been said. Being a young, impetuous non-conformist at the time, I secretly hoped that Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones would get to his feet again and make mincemeat of the Anglican leader, but he was wiser and more gracious than I shall ever be…

Is it too late now? New factors, besides liberalism and ecumenism, have come into the religious scene, ranging from the ridiculous to the rigid. The difficulties will be enormous but should that prevent us from attempting what is right? After all, trying to live a holy life can be difficult. Am I wrong to dream that one day there might be a closeknit Fellowship or Association of Bible Churches with English, Welsh and Scottish branches, to include all who have a serious view of the Bible and a commitment to a robust evangelicalism? Dr Lloyd-Jones ended his appeal with the prayer “May God speed the day”.

Foundations a journal of Evangelical theology for the British Evangelical Council (18th October 1966 edition)
 18th October 1966: I was there…

Stan Guest, then of the Congregational Evangelical Revival Fellowship

By 1966 I had been a member for some 12 years of the Westminster Fellowship. We met monthly under Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones and shared thoughts on many different subjects. From a letter I wrote to him on 2nd February, 1966, it is clear that, at the January meeting, he had spoken about „coming out” of the denominations. In my letter I said I was ready to do so but not yet persuaded that the time was „now”. I recalled his earlier advice that we should stay in as long as we can. I was preparing a statement for the Annual Assembly of the Congregational Union in May.

I was present at meetings of the National Assembly ofEvangelicals 1966 and was aware of the deep sadness and confusion felt by so many. This resulted in the Doctor closing the Westminster Fellowship for a time. My own personal position, however, had been greatly helped by the Doctor’s stand and this, no doubt, encouraged me to accept, in 1967, the position of Secretary to An Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches.

Evangelicals in congregationalism had a situation to face in 1966 that was different from their brethren in other denominations. The Congregational Union of England and Wales was changing its form in very significant ways. After several years of discussion it invited churches to covenant together as the Congregational Church of England and Wales. This commenced in 1966 and it was a clear move towards the further step of uniting with the Presbyterian Church of England to form the United Reformed Church. This took place in 1972. It was hailed as an important move towards ecumenical oneness. Though it is difficult to see it as such when one realises that over 200 more congregational churches stayed out of the URC than the number of Presbyterian churches that went in.

Not all the churches that remained congregational did so on evangelical grounds. Many saw that the URC was, in fact, really a Presbyterian body. They compared, for example, the Congregational Union declaration of 1833 with the URC constitution. The former stated that in no way was the Union to assume authority or become a court of appeal. The latter had as its closing statement: „The decision of the General Assembly on any matter which has come before it on reference or appeal shall be final and binding”.

Evangelicals recognised these changes of church policy, of course, but they believed they had even stronger grounds for separation. For decades the CUEW had been drifting away from the final authority of Scripture and the true declaration of the Gospel. This had already led, in 1947, to the forming of a Congregational Evangelical Revival Fellowship, drawing together individual members of churches. The call to covenant as the CCEW required an affirmation of oneness in doctrine with those who were fully liberal in their teachings. There were churches who could not do this and, in 1967, there was formed an Evangelical Fellowship of Congregational Churches.

One question that had to be faced was whether or not simply to join the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. Some churches did, in fact, take up joint membership. It was recognised, however, that churches would be more easily encouraged to take a stand if they could see they were continuing in a congregational denomination. One important consequence of this has been that, because an EFCC was legally recognised as a continuing congregational body, it has received substantial funds from the former national and county Congregational Unions, thus preserving their benefit for evangelical purposes.

The call for wider evangelical unity was not ignored, however. The first EFCC constitution booklet stated: „In no way is it the intention to set up a permanent body as a separate continuing denomination. We see ourselves as a ‘bridging Fellowship’ until such time as the Lord may prepare the way for a wider grouping of Bible-believing Christians from all denominational backgrounds”. Its first statement of purpose reads: „To seek the welfare and express the faith and the true unity of the whole Church of Jesus-Christ”.

Basil Howlett, then at Hesters Way BC, Cheltenham

The scene is indelibly etched on my mind. The occasion was the opening night of the Second National Assembly of Evangelicals arranged by the Evangelical Alliance which followed hard on the heels of a Commission to „study radically the various attitudes of Evangelicals to the Ecumenical Movement, denominationalism and a possible future United Church”. Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones had been asked by the leaders of the Evangelical Alliance to „say in public, what he had said in private” when speaking to them. The Central Hall, Westminster was full, the platform was occupied by evangelical leaders of various persuasions – two rows of them. At first, as far as physical stature went, Dr Lloyd-Jones was dwarfed by them, but as the meeting went on he seemed to become a giant!

I felt sorry for Derek Prime that night! He gave the introductory Bible Study on Philippians 2, and it was very good, but what followed was so electrifying that nobody had a hope of remembering what he said! The Rev. A Morgan Derham’s remarks, which had eulogised the Doctor with feint praise brought forth the following response when he arose to speak: „It would be churlish of me not to thank Mr Morgan Derham for the remarks he has made, but I wish he had not done so; he has robbed me of my valuable time!”

This gathering must be seen against the background of the increasing liberalism and mounting ecumenical pressures ofthose days. Two dreadful books which undermined Gospel truth had but recently been published. Honest to God by John Robinson (the Bishop of Woolwich) closely followed by Down to Earth written by Howard Williams (then President of the Baptist Union). In most of the doctrinally mixed denominations, Evangelicals were, at best, marginalised and ignored, but often mocked and discriminated against. Many young, evangelical ministers were fighting for survival, and would often find that a denominational official was working in league with disaffected members, to get them out of their churches. Numerous good, evangelical, theological students, looking for a church, were passed over. The Ecumenical Movement was marching forward to conquer, with strident voice and big steps, but with little sympathy for those who stood in the way. Evangelical churches had little hope of getting sites for church planting; Ecumenical Centres were the talk of the day.

Against that backcloth, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones stood to make his impassioned plea for Evangelicals, who were divided up among the denominations, to come together „as a fellowship or association of evangelical churches”, and to stand together for the Gospel. In actual fact, the words „separate” and „secede” were not was a positive appeal for Evangelicals to stand together, not just occasionally, but always. I went to the Central Hall, that night, disillusioned with the Baptist Union, desiring closer unity with Evangelicals, but scared about the way forward. How do you leave a major denomination and its security when you have a young family? Suppose the denomination evicts your church from its premises and throws you out of the manse! Yet as. the message drew to a close I was convinced, along with others, that to be true to Scripture and conscience I had no alternative but to ask God to give me the strength to do what was right, no matter what the cost. The preacher knew there would be a cost for many and sympathised:

There are great and grievous difficulties: I am well aware of them. I know there are men, ministers and clergy in this congregation at the moment, who, if they did what I am exhorting them to do, would have a tremendous problem before them, even a financial, an economic and a family problem. I do not want to minimize this. My heart goes out to such men. There are great problems confronting us if we act on these principles. But has the day come when we, as Evangelicals, are afraid of problems? The true Christian has always had problems. The early Christians had grievous problems, ostracized from their families and the threat of death ever facing them. They were not daunted: they went on, they believed, they knew, they would rather die than not stand for the truth.

Five years before, almost to the day, I had sat in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, trembling and gripping the seat, as I heard the Doctor preach for the first time, and was rescued from the emptiness of liberal theology. Now I was gripping the chair again! Oh that we had more preachers today who could make us tremble.

The chairman, John Stott, sensed that many men were being stirred to action and feared that some Anglican clergy might leave their church. Although he had already been given a ten minute slot earlier in the meeting to state his own views, he rose, at the end of the Doctor’s address not to close the meeting, but to counter what had been said. Being a young, impetuous non-conformist at the time, I secretly hoped that Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones would get to his feet again and make mincemeat of the Anglican leader, but he was wiser and more gracious than I shall ever be…

In spite of the interjection, many of us left the Central Hall feeling that we were on the verge of something new and exciting. We honestly believed that if we left our mixed denominations it would not be a matter of going out into the wilderness, but into this new grouping of churches. We also felt, quite justifiably, that just as men were willing to make sacrifices to come out of mixed denominations, so evangelical bodies like the FIEC and the Strict Baptists, etc, would be prepared to make changes in pursuit of this greater evangelical unity. Sadly, it has not happened. Our failure to heed the appeal, in my view, is one of the greatest tragedies and disappointments of the past 30 years. I sometimes wonder whether the increased confusion and contention within evangelicalism, not to mention the comedy, is a judgement of God upon us because of our failure to take evangelical unity seriously.

Is it too late now? New factors, besides liberalism and ecumenism, have come into the religious scene, ranging from the ridiculous to the rigid. The difficulties will be enormous but should that prevent us from attempting what is right? After all, trying to live a holy life can be difficult. Am I wrong to dream that one day there might be a closeknit Fellowship or Association of Bible Churches with English, Welsh and Scottish branches, to include all who have a serious view of the Bible and a commitment to a robust evangelicalism? Dr Lloyd-Jones ended his appeal with the prayer „May God speed the day”.

I thank God for the privilege of being at the Central Hall that night and of being allowed to live through those exciting, if scaring, times. Just one small, almost trivial incident indicates how traumatic the Central Hall meeting was. Two days later, as the EA assembly continued, newspaper vendors were selling their wares outside the Central Hall. The paper they were selling was The Christian, and their sales cry was not „Late Final” or „Latest Football Results’, but „Lloyd-Jones in The Christian!”, „Lloyd-Jones in The Christian!”

Derek Prime, then at Lansdowne EFC, Norwood

My memory of the evening of Tuesday, October 18th, 1966, at the Central Hall, Westminster, is not as clear as I would wish it to be. I do not think that any person taking part imagined that it would prove to be so significant. Had we appreciated the consequences that were to follow, I for one would probably have taken greater note of the feelings and convictions I then possessed.

I have clear recollections, however, of our time in the vestry beforehand. I imagine that I had been asked to take part because I was in the middle of my year as president of the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches. The atmosphere was warm and friendly. After prayer together, John Stott, the chairman, suggested that we make our way to the platform, and Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones asked John Stott, where he wanted him to sit. „Sit at my side”, John Stott requested, to which the Doctor quickly responded, with a twinkle in his eye, „Which side? You have two sides, John!”

I had been asked to read the Scriptures early on in the meeting, together with some brief comment. Since the stated theme was Christian unity, I read the first half ofPhilippians 2, and commented on the passage in the light of the subject.

The address Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones gave is well documented, and what he said probably surprised few of us, but what took everyone by surprise, I believe, was the action of the chairman, John Stott, when, after the Doctor’s address, he proceeded to repudiate what he had said. I sensed that this was unpremeditated and certainly not on the programme for the meeting. John Stott was clearly alarmed at the action some might be prompted to take. The lesson I clearly remember from that meeting, which has remained with me, is that a chairman should not be a principal contributor to a meeting, especially if the subject is one where strong feelings are held. The sympathy of many went out to the Doctor who had no opportunity of reply, and especially the sympathy of those who already identified with the Doctor’s position or who were feeling the particular pressures of a false ecumenism in their church situations. I wonder if things would have been different- and the outcome better – if the meeting had been chaired by someone whose task had only been to chair, and not to represent a position or point of view?

It was a sad occasion because of my personal debt to and affection for both men. As a teenager, my school was adjacent to Westminster Chapel, and I was early introduced to the Friday Evening Discussion Meeting. Then as a young pastor, before moving to Edinburgh, I attended for twelve years the Westminster Fellowship. As a student, I was Mission Secretary for the first mission John Stott took for the Christian Union at Cambridge, a mission which was outstandingly fruitful as he preached the series of sermons from which came Basic Christianity. No two men, with their contrasting styles of effective expository preaching, more greatly influenced me with regard to my own understanding of preaching. I owe a great debt to God for their example.

There were many repercussions from the meeting, which others have written about. The Evangelical Alliance lost from its council godly men such as Theodore Bendor-Samuel and John Caiger, and the British Evangelical Council was seen as a preferred alternative for expressing evangelical Church unity. My personal regret was that I lost fellowship with many whose friendship I had appreciated and gained from since student days in the then IVF, particularly with evangelical Anglicans. Evangelical Anglicans and evangelical non- conformists expressed their identity and common concerns in many ways in the early years of my ministry, but that more or less ceased, and both went very much their own ways. It has perhaps only been in recent years, principally through the Proclamation Trust’s activity, that the divide has been bridged and fellowship re-established.

Leith Samuel, then at Above Bar Church, Southampton

Rev. Morgan Derham was the General Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance (EA) when it undertook the task of enquiring whether or not there was a widespread demand for a united evangelical Church in Britain. An Assembly open to all Evangelicals registered with or recognised by the EA was arranged to meet in the Church House, Westminster, with two evening rallies in the Central Hall. John Stott chaired the first evening rally at which the speaker was Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who had discussed with the Council everything he was going to say. A rumour has circulated since that the message he gave took the Council of EA completely by surprise. Not so! They knew, and if they wished to, could have requested him not to say what he came out with. Revelation 18:4 was the Scripture on which the Doctor based his appeal. „Everything is in the melting-pot” is freely admitted all round. „For too long we have been content to go along as the evangelical wings of doctrinally- mixed denominations. Is this not the time to come together?” He did not advocate a new denomination, but „a loose federation of evangelical churches”. When he finished, John Stott got up and, contrary to the generally understood role of a chairman, flatly contradicted

the Doctor’s thesis by saying: „The Doctor has Scripture and Church History against him”, with no reference to any Scripture or incident in Church History. My host for the night, Tim Buckley of the London Bible College, said on the way home to Tooting: „Rugby and Cambridge. I can’t understand it!”, a reference to the chairman’s behaviour.

I rang the Doctor at his home that night, and expressed my grief at the way he had been treated. I did not sleep much that night, because I had to introduce a proposition next morning in the Church House that a fund should be started to help ministers who felt their conscience, enlightened by Scripture, was telling them they ought to leave their doctrinally-mixed denominations. I mentioned in my introduction that the existence of the Church of England was an illustration from Church History of a withdrawal from an apostate Church.

Imagine my consternation when we received at the door of the Central Hall that night a copy of The Christian, containing David Winter’s report of the meeting the previous evening with a heading across the front page saying: „The Doctor had called people out of their churches to form a new denomination”. Rev. HF Stevenson was unwell on the previous night and had asked David Winter to double up for him, so the Life ofFaith came out with a similarly startling heading the next day. In company with the Rev. Roland Lamb and a few others I submitted a letter to both papers asking the editors to correct the misleading impression of the previous week’s issue. The small letter was duly printed by both journals on page 3, totally lacking the impact of the previous week’s streaming headlines.

From personal conversations with the Doctor I gathered that he (and I!, let me hasten to add) were hoping that a banner would be raised at the Central Hall that we could all (true Evangelicals) in Britain come together under. I was informed by Dr Douglas Johnson, a close friend of the Doctor’s, that John Stott apologised privately to the Doctor, but never made public that he was sorry for treating the leading Evangelical in the country in the way he had done.

The next year the Anglicans met at Keele and declared they were committing themselves to a future in the Anglican community. I wrote to John Stott asking him not to overlook his non-conformist brethren. He assured me this would not happen! But ten years later at Nottingham they proceeded further in an Anglican direction. „This was not my scene said the leading Anglican Evangelical to me straight after Nottingham!

On the non-conformist side, the BEC gathering in Westminster Chapel, October 3rd 1967, was a significant moment, 450 years after Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the Church ofWittenberg, though the impetus of that great gathering was never maintained, alas!

Derek Swann, then at Ash(ord Congregational Church

I began my ministry at Ashford in January 1963. My predecessor, but one, the Rev. Gilbert Kirby had left to become General Secretary of the Evangelical Alliance in 1957. Consequently, the Church had strong links with the EA. It was natural, therefore, that I should be present at the October 1966 meeting at the Westminster Central Hall as a Church delegate, and at the various public meetings of the EA prior to that.

All that Dr Lloyd-Jones said that night in October is now well documented. To some, his message came like a thunderbolt, but to those of us who regularly attended the monthly meetings of the Westminster Fellowship of Ministers over which the Doctor presided, it was not. For many months the question of the Doctrine of the Church, unity and schism had been thoroughly discussed, so we were familiar with the Doctor’s position.

As Congregationalists we were forced in the early 60s, in way others were not, to consider, and face up to, the subject of Church unity. The Congregational Union of England & Wales was actively working for the formation of the Congregational Church in England and Wales (this came into being in 1966), which was a spring-board for union with the Presbyterian Church of England, which would result in the formation of the United Reformed Church in 1972. The majority of Evangelical Congregationalists were clear about what action they should take, but the discussions under Dr Lloyd-Jones were both strengthening and encouraging. At Ashford, as in many of our churches, the main issue was the Doctrine of Scripture. How could we possibly work with ministers and churches who held the view that „the Bible is not wholly free from error, confusion and contradiction, it must be read with fully critical attention if the Church is to discern the truth which is binding, and not to be in bondage to what is not binding”.1

A colleague had lunch with one of the leading men in the CUEW at the time, and warned that if loose views of Scripture continued to be embraced then Evangelicals could have no part in the proposed EC in England and Wales. His reply was: „We’re ready to lose you, for the sake of wider unity”. Not surprisingly the bulk of Evangelical Congregational Churches did not enter the new body. I must point out, as a matter of fact, that we did not come out of a body, rather we refused to join one.

To go back to the October 1966 meeting. When the Doctor finished his reasoned and passionate address, the behaviour of the Chairman, the Rev. John Stott, came as a shock. That otherwise calm and reasonable Anglican seemed to be visibly shaken by what had been said, and perhaps, fearful lest there should be a flood ofAnglican ministers prematurely leaving the Anglican Church, spoke briefly, but strongly that both Scripture and History were against the position the Doctor had outlined. The atmosphere was electric and one had the sense that from that night onwards a division in evangelicalism was highlighted that would dominate the scene for years to come.

Iosif Trifa – naratiune Traian Dorz si alte linkuri


Uploaded by  on Feb 10, 2009 videomontaj: Amintiri ale fratelui Traian Dorz despre ultimii ani ai Parintelui Iosif Trifa

Dumnezeu intotdeauna si-a gasit oameni care L-au iubit mai mult decat contemporanii lor, chiar si in secolele mai recente. Citind din cartea Dr. Iosif Ton despre Parintele Iosif Trifa si marele poet si crestin Traian Dorz am gasit o noua si adance apreciere pentru acesti doi barbati ai lui Dumnezeu care si-au dedicat viata urmandu-l pe Isus Hristos in mijlocul unui popor care se numea crestin dar traia fara El si in mijlocul persecutiilor care au caracterizat inceputul secolului XX in Romania.

Despre Oastea Domnului – si Traian Dorz/Iosif Trifa din cartea lui Iosif Ton – Credinta Adevarata – Capitolul: Incercari de Reforma in Biserica Ortodoxa Romana

  1. Partea 1 – Introducerea aici
  2. Partea 2 – Revelion 1922 – “Hotarirea”
  3. Partea 3 – Nu este destul sa spui “nu” unor pacate + VIDEO cu Traian Dorz la batrinete.
  4. Partea 4 – Lucrarea Tainica si Dumnezeiasca a Nasterii Din Nou
  5. Partea 5 – Decoperirea Bibliei
  6. Partea 6 – 1928 – Miscarea Oastea Domnului Se Extindea Vertiginos. Cum se intra in Oastea Domnului?
  7. Partea 7 –  Ce trebuie sa nu faca un Ostas al lui Hristos

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari