In response to a request from a Christian Academy, A Conquered Kingdom has been made into a paperback. The print size has been vastly reduced so that the book costs much less to produce. There are a few more provisos added, but to all intents and purposes, there have been no major changes from the first edition. Copies may be ordered from the link below:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/a-conquered-kingdom/7549956
This has been out for a few weeks, but my seminary (TNARS) has produced a journal (JNARS) which may be downloaded for free from the link below:
http://www.tnars.net/books/Journal.pdf
I have contributed one article to the first edition of this journal, “The Virgin Mary, The Mother of God: A Protestant and Reformed Consideration,” in which I argue that it is Biblical and Confessional for Reformed Protestants to call Mary ”The Mother of God.”
This booklet is my response to an article against Theonomy/Reconstruction in the February 2008 edition of Free Church Witness magazine. Although I have a lot of respect for Rev. Roberts as a Christian minister and writer (I even tell fellow Theonomists to read his books, as they would benefit from them), it was essential that the said article was replied to in order to correct the misrepresentations and inaccurate arguments that were utilised. Moreover, I have a popularly written, medium length, and mostly historical work called The Law is Good, which seeks to correct other misconceptions, on the way. God-willing, it will be published when my proof-reader finishes his work.
Copies may be ordered or downloaded for free from the link below:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/right-with-the-law/7427696
My essay on the impact of the reformation on Dutch political culture may be downloaded or purchased from the link below:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/the-reformation-and-dutch-political-culture/7310091
Reformed Worldview Books has just published a booklet by Rev. Gavin Beers (minister of Ayr Free Church Continuing). This work explains the Presbyterian doctrine of covenantal infant baptism in very clear and easy to understand terms. As the publisher, I highly recommend it. Copies may be purchased from here.
I will praise the name of God with a song; I will magnify him with thanksgiving. (Ps. 69:30)
Allow me to take this opportunity to render thanks unto the Lord for His goodness to me. This week, I have been awarded with a First Class Honours B.A. Degree in History and Politics from The Queen’s University of Belfast. Moreover, the School of Politics are awarding me the Julie Ann Statham Prize on Graduation Day (7th July, D.V.).
This time last year, I thought I had wasted four years of my life for nothing, as I was unable to finish third year, and really did not have the will to carry on. However, much as we are prone to doubt, all things do really work for our good (Rom. 8:28), and the Lord has been very gracious to me.
Thanks to all who have prayerfully supported me over the last few years.
Here is a link to an interview that I did on Trinity Talk radio show:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/trinitytalk/2009/06/22/Trinity-Talk-with-Uri-Jarrod
You may need to play it through iTunes. For links related to the interview go here.
Dear Readers
Regretfully, I am basically going to have to call a halt to posting on this blog. I will still update it to display advertisements for books and articles which I release, but I cannot continue writing posts (though, in truth, I have done very little in recent months).
The reason for stopping is that my mental health has deteriorated quite rapidly in the last couple of days, so that I have gone from suffering from moderate depression, to suffering from severe depression (my current health problems have been ongoing for nearly four years, though the severity has varied, and in the last eight years I have only really had one year in which I have had a clean bill of health). Consequently, I need to off-load certain burdens, and this is one of them. However, even in this, there is much cause to be thankful to the Lord, in that my health did not deteriorate any earlier as I would not have been able to finish my University exams. Nevertheless, when one is in such a frame of mind, posting on a blog is probably not the best idea, as the temptation to air one’s frustrations is too great (and yes, I admit that sometimes I have allowed my frustrations to boil over here, which I should not have done).
God-willing, I hope to do an MA at Queen’s next year; I have decided to do this, because it is unlikely that I will ever be well enough to hold down a full-time job in the long term. You can pray that my health will have improved sufficiently so that I will be able to do this and that I will be able to find a job in the meantime (employment is extremely scarce in Northern Ireland). You may still contact me at my e-mail address: danielritchie@live.co.uk
Yours in Christ
Daniel Ritchie
This video shows that President Abraham Lincoln was not a freedom loving liberator, but a racist, despot and war criminal. When doing a module on the American Civil War at Queen’s last year, I was amazed at how students could be confronted with these facts about “honest Abe”, yet they still thought he was a great bloke. Sadly, even many Christians have been sucked in by the propaganda, including my church’s sister denomination the RPCNA, who supported the invasion of the Confederate States of America by the US Imperial Forces.
In this video we see the utter hatred and persecuting zeal of Sodomites towards Christians in California who were in favour of their state continuing to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. Remember though, that this is the righteous judgment of God upon the Western world for our idolatry and apostasy (Rom. 1:24).
We need to pray a) for the conversion of homosexuals, remember that “such were some of you. But you were washed you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. 6:11; b) for ourselves and future generations who may have to suffer persecution by the civil authorities for opposing sodomy.
Permit me to share this highly amusing video with you all. However, on a more serious side, it does reveal how people unwittingly (or perhaps not so unwittingly?) view their politicians as would-be Messiahs. Now, excuse me while I get some relief for my splitting sides 
Robert Truelove explains the need for textual criticism in this lecture. I rarely comment on this issue, as do not believe it is important enough to take up much time, however, those wondering about this question will find the lecture very useful.
“Give me your 4 years olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state.” Vladimir Lenin
Enough said.
In this post Mrs Carol DeMar (the wife of Dr. Gary DeMar) gives us some principles to consider with respect to modesty; those who know me well will know that I am definitely not a Fundamentalist legalist, however, the standard of dress among Reformed females does not impress me. Remember that Christian liberty is not a licence to do whatever suits you at the expense of the welfare of other people, and Christian ladies need to consider whether or not they are abusing Christian liberty to the point that they are causing others to sin. Anyway, Mrs DeMar gives us the following food for thought:
Buying Into Modesty
Girls beg their mothers to buy them the latest fashions. Magazines, movies, and television bombard all of us with what we should wear and how we should act. Mom gives in to her daughter who becomes propagandized by the ad hype with how to be sexy, popular, or pretty, because Mom is weary of battling the clothing issue. It’s easier to hand over the money even if it means Susie dresses like some temptress. “And behold, a woman comes to meet him, dressed as a harlot and cunning of heart. She is boisterous and rebellious; her feet do not remain at home” (Prov. 7:10–11). Permitting daughters to encourage impure thoughts by their immodest clothing is sinful. Teach your daughter to walk in dignity as a child of the King.
Parents must combat the media machine that is continually thrusting anti-Christian behavior, dress, and attitudes upon us. An all out war is being fought for the minds and bodies of your children, seducing them with visual delights that entice and corrupt, not unlike weak Edmund succumbing to the tasty Turkish Delight offered by the White Witch in C.S. Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Constant parental vigilance is necessary to protect children from the onslaught of impropriety that assails them during their every waking hour.
Set standards and abide by them. Permitting a daughter to wear a dress that shouts “Easy!” misleads others into thinking that she may have loose morals. Fathers must participate in teaching modesty to their children. Fathers show how much they love their daughters by preventing them from appearing as harlots. Nixing your daughter’s dress choice because of its immodesty may cause her disappointment for a brief time but will show her how much Dad cares for her in the long run. Modesty begins in the heart, and it takes both parents working together training their daughter to live a godly life. “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).
Bra Straps Are Inappropriate Any Time
I am compelled to bring this up, because I am on bra strap overload—girls and women should never wear clothing where bra straps are visible! It doesn’t matter if the straps are clear plastic, colorful, or covered in polka dots; they should remain under wraps at all times. I have seen girls and women wearing dresses or tops that exposed several straps, including bra straps. This is not attractive. This is not a fashion statement. This is not how a lady presents herself. Wear an undergarment that remains hidden from public view! That’s all I’m going to say about that.
Look Upon That Which is Pure
The visual testimony (how one dresses, behaves, etc.) is powerful and often is used to draw conclusions about an individual. Children must be taught the basics of presenting a positive impression. This is not about trying to deceive—it’s about presenting a message to the world about who you are as a Christian. Modesty must be incorporated into the daily lessons parents are teaching their children. Immodesty is too often reflected in Christians. “As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout, so is a beautiful woman who lacks discretion” (Prov. 11:22).
If Mom is dressing inappropriately, how can we expect daughter to dress properly? Philippians 4:8 instructs us accordingly: “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” It is difficult to dwell on pure thoughts when Christians are failing in the modesty department. Be a positive role model for your children by wearing clothing suitable for a man or woman who follows Christ.
Choosing friends who are Christ-like in their attitudes, talk, and dress helps to reinforce those qualities in children. Develop friendships with other families who value these same qualities. “He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will suffer harm” (Prov. 13:20).
The two sermons that I preached as part of my D.Min course are now available to download for free. Or, if you are really keen, hard copies may also be purchased.
The first is God’s Sovereignty in the Salvation of Men: An Exposition of Romans 9:1-18.
The second is The Victory of Christian Culture: An Exposition of Isaiah 65:17-25.
In the will of the Lord, I hope to bring out a couple of “tasters” before the first volume of Reformed Theonomy is released (which will not be for another year). Moreover, it is hoped that Reformed Worldview Books will reprint old stuff (i.e. by people other than myself) on the regulative principle and exclusive psalmody, as a Reformed worldview is interested in more than “Christianity and society” issues, but is also concerned with reform of the church.
I am pleased to announce that A Conquered Kingdom: Biblical Civil Government has now got new covers on the dustjacket (a significant improvement on the old design). Moreover, Dr. Joseph Kickasola and Mr. Stephen Halbrook compiled a seven page Scripture index, which I have added to the contents.
Copies of this book may be purchased from here.
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:8-9)
In recent months I have become increasingly concerned with what blogging has become, and so I have made changes such as no longer allowing coments to be made by visitors. However, I have also become convinced that part of the problem has been of my own making, and I must confess certain failures and seek forgiveness of anyone unduly hurt by anything I have written here. Since I have received my doctorate, I have been more aware of the position of responsibility which I find myself in, and believe I need to conduct myself more circumspectly on the internet.
Firstly, I wish to apologise for a post called “The Arminianism of the Federal Vision.” Now, while I do not believe Federal Vision theology is orthodox, that post was not fairly representing their views. As one who has had to suffer (sadly very recently) the pain of continuous misrepresentation (and at times slander) I of all people should be the last to ever misrepresent anyone – no matter how strongly I may disagree. In light of this, the post has been modified to only deal with the question of limited atonement.
Secondly, I wrote a series of posts on headcoverings which were originally entitled “Hats and Hypocrisy.” This was a mistake. By calling it that, I seemed to be implying that people were acting like hypocrites, rather than simply exegetically mistaken. I should have been more charitable to those of differing views on a secondary issue, especially as I agree with the underlying principle of the text (I only differ as to the modern application of the principle).
Thirdly, I apologise to Peter Masters for a review I did of his book, World Dominion. Now, Dr. Masters did write a number of things that deserved mockery (1 Kings 18:27), but the way I worded it implied he, not merely his argument, was stupid. This was most unfair. He may be seriously mistaken on that subject, but he is a good preacher and deserves more respect.
Now please don’t misunderstand me as attacking satire, humour, negativity or strong language; the Bible does authorise the use of those things, but the usuage must be appropriate. Although I am willing to stand over most things I have written here, and am willing to defend myself from unjust attacks (such as those I was subject to by the Puritan Board), nevertheless, every now and then we must swallow our pride and admit we have been in the wrong. It is not easy, but it must be done if Christ is to get the glory.
Speaking at the signing of the Solemn League and Covenant, Alexander Henderson said:
Nor is it unknown in this honourable, reverend and wise audience, what errors and heresies in doctrine, what superstition and idolatry in worship, what usurpation and tyranny in government, what cruelty against the souls and bodies of the saints have been set on foot, exercised and executed for many generations, and now of late by the Roman church: all which we hope, through the blessing of God upon this work, shall be brought to an end. Had the Pope at Rome the knowledge of what is doing this day in England, and were this covenant written on the plaster of the wall over against him, where he sits, Belshazzar-like in his sacrilegious pomp, it would make his heart to tremble, his countenance to change, his head and mitre to shake, his joints to loose, and all his cardinals and prelates to be astonished.
I have been appointed as a Council Member of the Evangelical Reformed Council on Academics. I would request that readers pray that I will carry out my (albeit limited) duties to the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ and for the good of His Church.
Readers in Northern Ireland should note that a few copies of The Covenanters and the Glorious Revolution may now be purchased from Evangelical Bookshop in Belfast (priced £7.50…though there may be a discount…depending on what mood John is in 
).
Question 100. Is then the profaning of God’s name, by swearing and cursing, so heinous a sin, that his wrath is kindled against those who do not endeavour, as much as in them lies, to prevent and forbid such cursing and swearing?
Answer: It undoubtedly is, for there is no sin greater or more provoking to God, than the profaning of his name; and therefore he has commanded this sin to be punished with death.
The proof-text is: Lev.24:15 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. Lev.24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.
This cleary shows us that the early Reformed did not believe that the death penalty only applies to murder in the new covenant age (though there may be reasonable disagreement over what penalties are maximum or mandatory or if certain punishments have been modified in the New Testament). Indeed, they even enshrined this position in one of the foremost confessional documents of the Reformed faith, which is part of the Three Forms of Unity (the Continental European equivalent of the British Westminster Standards). Therefore, if you believe the death penalty only applies to murder then you are out of accord with the Reformed Confessions.
I must confess to be rather weary of the endless tirade of criticism aimed at Pastor Mark Driscoll in recent weeks. It seems that virtually every blog or discussion board you visit has someone or something attacking him. But why all the fuss?
Is he a raving heretic like Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen? Well, he may not fully subscribe to the original Westminster Standards, but we cannot rubbish everyone who does not, can we? He may believe some things that are wrong, but then name me a man who doesn’t?
It is complained that he uses “inappropriate” language. However, the Bible is not as “polite” as the Reformed establishment would have us believe; when was the last time you heard a sermon on Ezekiel 16? Moreover, our Reformed forebears were not mealy-mouthed when it came to attacking incorrigible enemies of the truth. Yes, this has to be balanced with Biblical directives towards gentleness (Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:24-25), but the context in which statements are made is vitally important to properly evaluating them.
At the end of the day, he preaches the gospel, and many have been converted. When people whom Paul did not like preached the word he rejoiced; can we not do the same (Phil 1:15-18)? I am not saying he is beyond constructive criticism, but most of what has been written is starting to wear me out.
It all reminds me of what I used to hear, and what I used to say, about John Piper about 5 or 6 years ago. However, when I started listening to the man and reading his books, I repented and acknowledged that I was not fit to tie his shoe-laces (that is in spite of notable theological differences). Perhaps the same thing will happen with Mark Driscoll; I hope it does.
I have come across a website called “Christian Establishment Through the Ages.” If you are interested in reading the views of various Patristic and early Reformed theologians, then visit the following link for historic quotes on the Establishment Principle:
The below is a presentation that I hope (God-willing) to give at University next week.
The question before us is: “In what ways did the Protestant doctrine of Justification through Faith Alone (Sola Fide) challenge the traditional teaching of the medieval church?”
To begin with we must be aware of the fact that various ecumenists – people who want greater unity between Protestants and Roman Catholicism – have sought to argue that the Reformers were not really attacking the views of Medieval Roman Catholicism with respect to justification, but were only attacking abuses that were not related to the prevailing Thomistic theology of the Roman Catholic Church. However, I believe this argument is fallacious, as the Reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith alone, or sola fide, represents a significant break from late medieval teaching.
Firstly, late medieval scholastic theology believed that sinners had not only to go through the rituals of the church (such as penance) to receive for-giveness, but they then had to do good works of obedience to make satisfaction for the temporal punishment of sin and to acquire merit, through which he might eventually earn entrance into eternal life. In order to do these good works grace had to be infused into the sinner, but the sinner could never know, with complete subjective certainty, if he is in a state of grace that will justify him, because when the grounds of justification is seen as residing in sinful man (i.e. in their own good works), then the justification of the sinner in this life is always provisional and incomplete. It is only at the final judgment that man can be certain of complete absolution and be sure that he is found righteous because of the meritorious works he has performed. Thus, for Medieval Roman Catholicism, justification is a process, which ultimately depends on the good works which men have done.
The Reformers, by way of contrast, had a fundamentally different view of justification. For them, sinful man was so corrupt that even his works of obedience could not merit God’s favour, and so justification could not be founded on something based in man. Instead, in order to be accepted as righteous by God, sinners would have to be justified on account of an alien righteousness outside of themselves. And so they believed that the righteousness of Christ had to be imputed to a sinner in order for him to be accounted as righteous before God. Thus justification was a once-for-all act of grace in which God declared a sinner righteous on the basis of the merit of Christ (His death and obedience to the law of God), it was not a process dependent upon the sinners own meritorious obedience. Furthermore, the means by which the sinner received the righteousness of Christ was through faith alone; faith was not considered to be a meritorious work, as it was the gift of God and founded in His predestination (God had chosen those who would believe, He did not choose them because they would be-lieve). However, this did not mean that the Reformers had no place for good works; they believed that good works resulted from justification, but they were not the cause of it. In doing this, they distinguished between the act of justification and the process of sanctification. And because good works were no longer seen as the grounds of justification, this meant that sinners could have absolute certainty about their salvation, as they now believed that they were accepted by God on account of what Christ had done for them – which is a significant break from late medieval theology. On these main points, all the major Reformers – Luther, Zwingli and Calvin – were in essential agreement. So although they disagreed on other is-sues, there is essentially one common Protestant doctrine of justification among the Reformers.
Did the Roman Catholic authorities view the concept of sola fide as a major break with late medieval theology? Their response indicates that they did. Opposition to sola fide was evident as early as Luther’s meeting with Cardinal Cajetan at Augsburg in October 1518. The Thomist Cajetan noted that the subjective certainty of salvation on the part of the believer (which Luther’s view provides for) was a great threat to the Papal church, as it would undermine the whole idea of ‘the cycle of salvation’ in which good works and obedience to the rites of the church were seen as essential to achieving salvation. Because if people were certain of salvation, what need would there be for penance, indulgences, pilgrimages, absolution and so forth. Indeed, Roman Catholicism regarded the Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone, on account of Christ’s merits alone, as so dangerous that the Council of Trent declared anyone who held it to be anathema. Hence there can be no dispute that sola fide was a major challenge to late medieval theology.
Announcement: The Covenanters and the Glorious Revolution may now be purchased from the Covenanter Bookshop at Knockbracken and John Gowan’s Books in Co. Fermanagh.
Recent Comments