Jesus Christ grappled with man’s greatest fear and vanquished our unconquerable enemy.

This is not a subject to address with trite phrases and comments, any more than today’s annual memorial of the fallen in both World Wars and in subsequent conflicts.

The Lord Jesus Christ accomplished what no other man has done nor can do.

At His crucifixion on the Cross of Calvary, Jesus was grappling with and overcoming death, not in the abstract but in the definite.  Behind this, He was grappling with the hidden and unmeasurable depths of justice due to the wickedness of sin, and not just any sin but the sins of an innumerable number of human beings whom He came into this world to redeem.

How can preachers address the greatest of human battles and self-sacrifice in trite and superficial phrases? 

Truly, Jesus speaks of it in a few sentences and the New Testament writers use shorthand terms, but not superficially nor in a glib fashion.

Resurrection

Conjoint with His cruel and cursed death is Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, so that His rejection, crucifixion and death is not a defeat but introductory to His glorious resurrection, breaking the bands of death, spoiling principalities and demonic powers Col 2:15, exposing them publicly, announcing victory to His people 1Cor 15:57 and deliverance to the captives Lk 4:18, so that those who sit in darkness may see a great Light Lk 1:79.

His resurrection shows and teaches us so much.  Do people admire it?  Are people impressed with the artists of the entertainment world? What is that celebrity to the glory of Jesus Christ as the Destroyer of death and the Creator of eternal life 1Cor 15:45? Let it be the celebrities of science, music, art, invention or whatever, He is fairer than them all.

“Thou art fairer than the children of men.”

Psalm 45:2.

Why did He die and why did He rise again? Jesus dealt with the punishment that was due to His people’s sin. “And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call His name JESUS: for He shall save His people from their sins” Mat 1:21.

It is central to Jesus’ teaching and to the apostle Paul’s teaching 1Cor 11:24.

Facing Jerusalem

Jesus went up deliberately to Jerusalem Isa 50:7, Lk 9:53 to face death Lk 12:50 and to destroy it Heb 2:14, 1Cor 15:26, reminding us of the title of Dr John Owen’s famous treatise – “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”.

Death is the wages of sin Rom 6:23 and Jesus’ death substituted for His people and atoned for their sins and their consequences, the greatest consequence being their separation from the fellowship of God. 

Sin is a separating force – separating between man and man, between man and God, between body and soul. “Your sins have separated between you and your God” Isaiah 59:2. 

Thus Jesus cried on the Cross of Calvary “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” Mat 27:46 because He was making atonement for His people’s sins. He stood in their place and suffered the punishment that was due to their sins – His death was a substitutionary atonement for His people.  It required nothing less than the divine worth of the Son of God, upheld in His humanity by the Holy Spirit Isa 42:1, to atone for innumerable sins.

“By one offering” Jesus has “perfected for ever them that are sanctified” (Heb 10:14). He has perfectly reconciled us to the Father, perfectly satisfied the law, perfectly vanquished Satan, perfectly extinguished the curse, perfectly abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light – clear from every taint of the region and shadow of death and darkness.”

Christ For Us – Sermons of Hugh Martin.

By His sufferings and death Jesus secured the authority to forgive the sins of the greatest sinner Heb 2:10. Let the devil and his wicked followers complain about the godly, but the justice of God is satisfied with Jesus’ offering of Himself on their behalf – “For by one offering He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified” Heb 10:14.

So successful is His work that He was invited to sit down at the right hand of the throne of God Ps 110:1.

“When He had by Himself purged our sins, He sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high” Heb 1:3.

Thus the apostle Paul in one of his sermons showed by scriptural exegesis that the Messiah must die and rise again Act 13:33-37. He explained that the Old Testament taught and promised Act 13:32 that the Messiah would be raised from the dead Act 13:33-37, from which he expounded the forgiveness of sins Act 13:38-39.

More than incarnation – death and resurrection

Jesus’ incarnation by becoming human and His identification with human nature is not enough to save sinners, as some falsely teach. Rather, Jesus taught:

“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it abides alone: but if it dies, it brings forth much fruit.” 

John 12:24

Jesus’ resurrection destroyed death and He secured the authority to forgive sins. By His death He was perfected as a Saviour Heb 2:10 and by His resurrection He “obtained eternal redemption” for His people Heb 9:12, 1Cor 15:45.

“So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.
But thanks be to God, Who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

1Cor 15:54-57.

Jesus introduced brotherly love as a new Christian commandment, by which they would know His disciples Jn 13:34-35.

It is a premium mark of the godly.   It is not the same as herd mentality or group bonding.

Some ungodly people like or even love the godly, but not because they are godly but because they are loveable, nice people, or they may be a relative, or such like.

On the other hand, brotherly love between the brethren is not because they like their company but because they see something of the grace or character of Christ in each other, either in their behaviour or conversation.

The apostle John spoke about this Christian fellowship between the brethren 1Jn 1:3,6-7.  It is based on their fellowship with the Father, so that they have something spiritual to talk about.

If one never converses with other people it is very difficult to determine whether they have Christian character and conversation.

There are some people who are so morose and private that they just do not want to know other people or, worse, that they have such prejudices that they do not want to know the godly. This is quite a dangerous character to have as it suggests that they have still to taste the grace of Christ in such a way as to wish to share it with others Ps 66:16.

“O taste and see that the LORD is good. Blessed is the man who trusts in Him.”

Psalm 34:8

Links:

24 May 2023: The content of Christian fellowship.

There is certainly a role for this, but the cure should arise from biblical behaviour irrespective of the past.  The past helps to identify major issues, but the solution must still be biblical behaviour. 

History will identify that abusive ecclesiastical behaviour is the major cause of dissentions and denominational splits.

Presbyterian History

Presbyterian zeal to build Christ church has a long history, not only in Scotland.  Early American zeal, following the Second Great Awakening, led to the desire and attempt to recover the Apostolic church.  It threw the baby out with the bath-water and the movement was ill-prepared for the challenges of the 19th century, such as evolution, biblical criticism, forms of worship, etc., but the readiness to experiment and change created a milieu for change and 19th-century America became a hotbed for religious cults.

This experiment with change continued into the 20th century with the 1910 Edinburgh missionary conference leading to the ecumenical movement, with its race to the bottom common denominator.  It created ‘jobs for the boys’ on stages larger than the national scene, such as the World Council of Churches (WCC) but there was no progress in biblical solutions for the church.

International Presbyterianism was now large enough to influence world events, but the downward pathway away from biblical principles continued, and the 21st century now witnesses the multifath agenda after the intermediary interfaith movement.

With this background, the Presbyterian interest in church union in Scotland arises from declining numbers and not from biblical principles about Christ’s church. 

Diagnosis

A diagnosis of the various issues will help but often this is used to justify continued denominationalism. Ultimately the church needs to recover its biblical roots.  The Christian Gospel has the potential to grow anywhere and to produce fruit 30-fold, 60-fold and 100-fold.  So why does it not do so at present?

It did so in the past, so why not in the present?

I have suggested that its poor governance is hindering progress.  Unbiblical behaviour has impeded progress denominationally and at the congregational level.

Christian behaviour should solve many a problem, if only it was preached and practised.

There is always a bias in favour of the status quo, but my suggested Reformation of Presbyterianism is intended to lead to an improved biblical analysis of the Church.

The present situation

Current Presbyterianism has become legal, hierarchial, partisan and overbearing. It has ossified and needs Reformation.

Failed attempts at reform have focused on organic union on the false premise of Jesus’ High Priestly prayer in Jn 17.  The ecumenical movement of the late 20th century has failed and it is now experimenting with interfaith dialogue with a view to integration by one means or another.

The failure of the ecumenical movement is no reason for the Presbyterian church to delay its own Reformation along biblical lines. 

Organic union

Presbyterian Reformation does not mean organic union.  If the spirit of Presbyterianism is not practised within a denomination, organic union will not improve it, but it will simply give more scope and opportunity for Diotrephes 3Jn 1:9 to strut on a wider stage.

Presbyterianism is not a denomination, but the method for churches to interact with each other profitably Rom 12:5.

Rather, biblical behaviour between different branches of Christ’s visible church might teach each denomination and its congregations how to behave at the individual level.  It is behaviour that is the solution – Christian behaviour. 

Using its God-given gifts

This means making use of all the gifts Christ has given to His Church.  Instead of “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos”, Paul taught us that “All things are yours” 1Cor 3:21-22. When did you last act on this advice?

Biblical denominations

Although Presbyterianism developed in Scotland yet one will hardly ever see references to Scottish theologians in Wikipedia articles about theology.  This is all the more reason for Scottish Presbyterianism to lead the way once more with biblical behaviour.

Just as the Scottish Enlightenment manifested the educational and intellectual abilities of Scotsmen, like Presbyterianism before it, so it is time for Scottish theology to develop Christian behavioural theology. 

Much of modern Christianity is more interested in listening to German theologians and now American theologians and sometimes South American liberation theologians, but the attainments of Scottish Presbyterianism is largely ignored.  This may be no wonder at present, in view of the parlous state of its fragmented churches and the lack of contribution throughout the 20th century.  Until we put our own house in order, who will listen?  However, if we put it in order on biblical principles of behaviour we will not only contribute something new to the global ecclesiastical community, but the smile of heaven may demonstrate the blessing that attends Christian behaviour at the collective, local and personal level.

The future

The future belongs to God, but Jesus has told us what to expect.   He taught His Church to pray  “Thy kingdom come.” It is not an empty prayer; it has purpose and a target in it.  Prayer without action is dead, just as “faith without works is dead” Jam 2:17,20,26.

After the completion of Christ’s Advent Ps 110:1-2, the biblical millennium will produce theologians who will implement the necessary revision to ecclesiastical and personal Christian behaviour, which will contribute to the perpetuation of the Millennium. Meanwhile, we can begin to Work Towards the Millennium with behavioural reform.

Links:

24 Jul 2026: the spirit and form of Presbyterianism.

31 Oct 2026: inadequate Presbyterian debate.

14 Apr 2026: Northern Ireland and some distinctives.

My only-begotten, beloved son James was united in marriage before God and His earthly witnesses with Rebeca, the beloved of his heart, in a wedding ceremony by his local Reformed Presbyterian minister from Airdrie, Scotland, in the local Church of Scotland building in Rome.

His sister Rachel flew from Colorado Springs, USA, and his other two sisters from Inverness, Scotland, while Rebeca’s family flew from Peru to join our collective prayer to the Lord Jesus Christ, the only Head of the Church, for His blessing on them and their future lives together. In this happy endeavour, they were joined by family and friends from far and near

Rachel and Rebeca call to mind a third biblical “R” – Ruth, whom the Lord used to build the house of Israel Rth 4:11,17. Similarly, we pray that James and Rebeca’s new Christian home will contribute to building the kingdom of God on Earth.

Rome needs a new beginning and one began today.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s Morning & Evening, a book with daily meditations, begins today the 5th of November thus: “This day is notable in English history for two great deliverances wrought by God for us. On this day the plot of the Papists to destroy our Houses of Parliament was discovered, 1605. And secondly – today is the anniversary of the landing of King William III, at Torbay, by which the hope of Popish ascendancy was quashed, and religious liberty was secured, 1688. This day ought to be celebrated, not by the saturnalia of striplings, but by the songs of saints. Our Puritan forefathers most devoutly made it a special time of thanksgiving. There is extant a record of the annual sermons preached by Matthew Henry on this day. Our Protestant feeling, and our love of liberty, should make us regard its anniversary with holy gratitude. Let our hearts and lips exclaim.”

There is now a third notable event on this anniversary for our consideration. Accompanied “by the songs of saints” and by the Word of God, James and Rebeca were united in marriage, and through their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to the conjoint privilege of serving Him for the rest of their lives.

We have a new beginning in Rome. Rome desperately needs it.

May God help you both, James and Rebeca, to do what you can to build the Cause of Christ and advance the kingdom of God on Earth.  May God bless you both together.

James and Rebeca Boyd

ONE HAPPY COUPLE

Links:

5 Nov 2025: last year’s blogpost – Christ’s global agenda for completing His First Coming and introducing the biblical Millennium.

Intelligent, informed debate is essential for progress and community cohesion. As long as the Presbyterian church is unable to debate properly or to pass on the Gospel to the next generation, so surely the church will continue to lose its children into the floodwaters of global opinions.

A recent example may help to illustrate the point. Within the same week I recently came across two opposite assessments of what the history of the Reformed Church in Scotland teaches us. One assessment said that we should aim for one uniform, Reformed national church. The other assessment concluded the exact opposite. Each proponent had a lifetime of reading Scottish church history.

So what? The starting point was wrong for each of them. They began with the events as they understood them and drew their conclusions therefrom.

The background theme of their studies was how to progress the Reformed Church today. Neither of them began with the Bible nor did they articulate the biblical vision. Of course, there were quotations from the Bible – selective quotations. In one assessment, the variety of denominations was interpreted as the judgment of God upon the church and nation.  In the other assessment the denominations were viewed as the inevitable outcome of liberty of conscience and pointed out that 17th-century Presbyterianism altered the original vision of the Christian Church articulated by the Reformers and the Second Reformation in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

The historical debate about the headship of Christ over His church focused on Christ being the Head and the church being His body. Samuel Rutherford was cited quoting: “Is Christ divided?” 1Cor 1:13, suggesting that His body should not be divided and thus there should be one national Church, separation from which was reckoned to be schism. This led, throughout  later centuries, to the scramble to prove that one’s own denomination was the one, true Reformed Church in Scotland, with the inevitable charges laid against the separatists, the seceders or schismatics in the other churches.

Scripture or history?

The purpose of historical study, historical theology and systematic theology is not to show how many books one has read, nor how learned one is, nor to create followers of one’s line of argumentation, but to make the student more familiar with Scripture so that one can argue one’s case from Scripture rather than appealing to the plethora of historians and theologians – the scribal method of debate that Jesus cut through and contradicted Mat 7:24

These historical reviews were interesting, informative and useful, but beside the point.

How so? The premise is wrong and can be easily demonstrated – from the Bible. The squabbling debate is inadequately formed, formulated and conducted, both then and now.

This illustrates a difficulty in such historical assessments because it shows the different and inadequate starting points. One assessment looked at the history of the Church in Scotland and its breaking points with the aim of returning to the original Church of Scotland, more or less by ignoring what had caused the divisions. Back to the beginning.

The other sought to explain the breaking points. Useful, but not showing the biblical way forward.

Not all Christians can be biblical exegetes and many will never be competent historians, but we are all theologians, for better or worse Rom 1:18-19, with some better than others Ps 14:1, Ps 53:1. We cannot commend ourselves to every man’s conscience 2Cor 4:2 by such theological or historical methodology, but only by biblical exposition.

Biblical debate

So what do we make of this? Which historian(s) should we follow? Must we read all these books to find out which one is right?especially when they come to completely different views about a national Reformed church?

Jesus cut through this type of argumentation which was typical of the scribes of His day and which continues among the academics of our day. So how do we cut through this argument? By showing that their biblical analysis is deficient and partial.

For example, another figure of the Christian Church is that Jesus is the Vine and we are the branches Jn 15:1-8.  This figure began in the Old Testament Ps 80:8, Isa 5:1-7. The figure was developed by Jesus Who continued to develop the concept with different parables Mat 13:24,31, and Scripture continues it until the day when the Jews will be grafted back into their own olive tree Rom 11:24.

There are different branches to Christ’s visible church but this was completely absent from the historical accounts that I read providentially in the same week.

The authors of each of these productions are firmly biblical and know their Bible, but they did not begin with their Bible but with church history. They have not balanced their assessments with all the biblical concepts. This is why I see them as partial and inadequate. To be fair, they were following the historical narrative, but this narrative was itself partial and inadeqate. Rather, they should have applied biblical assessment to balance the skewed narrative. In other words, centuries of inadequate Presbyterian debate. Are we any futher forward?

The vision?

A unified Christian church is one feature of Christ’s vision for His church on Earth, but the biblical vision is quite different from this partial analysis, and it is much grander Eph 2:19-22, Eph 1:10.

It is often noted that those Christians who disagreed on Earth will be united in heaven, so why has this vision not worked effectively in the hearts of earthly saints? Because of the ungodly denominationalism that refuses to acknowledge that “the eye cannot say to the hand I have no need of thee” 1Cor 12:21.

We need to see the biblical vision for Christ’s church and work towards it, not by unattainable knocking of denominational heads together but by biblical principles of church growth.

It is not a modern problem. In Scotland, the 18th-century Marrow Controversy was a longstanding dispute with ecclesiastical, theological and spiritual consequences in the Church of Scotland, but the debate used confusing terminology and led to misunderstanding and an ecclesiastical split from the Church of Scotland. Similarly in North America. After the 18th-century Second Great Awakening, the 19th-century ‘back-to-basics’ attempt to recover the apostolic church loosened attachments to creedal formulations already attained. The subsequent debates demonstrated that the Presbyterian churches were rudderless to deal with the challenges of biblical and Higher Criticism, the hypothesis of evolution, the demand for contemporary and ‘more relevant’ worship form in this climate for change and relaxing confessional subscription. It continued through the 20th century and the NAPARC North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council continues to focus on organisational unity. The biblical vision is noticeable by its absence. The focus on history and academia rather than biblical exegesis and application confuses the non-academic minds who wonder which leader to follow – are you “for or against” such-and-such. Conferences and ecclesiastical or denominational debates are the same problem writ-small. Presbyterians need to learn how to debate in a biblical fashion.

We need to begin with the Bible and not with academia. This is what Jesus did, and ordinary people could see the difference Mat 7:28-29.

Links:

21 Nov 2023: Reforming the Reformed Church.

24 Jul 2026: The spirit and form of Presbyterianism.

20 Aug 2026: The Reformation of Presbyterianism.

7 Oct 2026: Presbyterian prejudices.

30 Oct 2026: Inadequate Presbyterian debate.

It does so by preaching a false Christ.

There are various ways of preaching a false Christ.

Arminians preach a Christ who does not actually save, that puts salvation into the believer’s own hands, emphasizing the decision to follow Christ otherwise Christ cannot actually save them.  It is another form of neonomianism.

Hyper-evangelism makes the doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary death for sinners the object of saving faith rather than Jesus Christ Himself.

Roman catholics put their trust in their institution to save them with its sacraments that it teaches are essential to salvation.

Unitarians preach an inadequate Christ.  Similarly the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

John Gerstner asserts that “No matter how many other important truths it proclaims, it cannot be called Christian if it empties Christianity of its essential message.” What is that essential message? “What is indisputably, absolutely, and uncompromisingly essential to the Christian religion is its doctrine of salvation.” Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism, John Gerstner (1991:150).

It might seem harsh and unchristian to criticize the theology of various streams of Christian thought, and there are those who think that doctrine divides and should be kept to a minimum.  However, the apostle Paul sets the tone:

“I marvel that you are so soon removed from him who called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and would pervert the Gospel of Christ.  However, though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than this which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 
As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that you have received, let him be accursed.”

Galatians 1:6-9

There is only one Gospel, one Jesus Christ but there are multitudes of counterfeits. Can you tell the difference? Do you care?  Do you see the danger of a counterfeit? Jesus continually  warned against charlatans preaching false Christs, so you need to be on your guard by reading His own words in the four Gospels in the Bible – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

You should pray to God that His Holy Spirit will not allow you to deceive yourself on this important matter.  By definition, a person that is deceived does not know it until it is pointed out to them.

This is where mature Christians can help you, but many old Christians are also deceived because they have not used the Bible to correct themselves.

It is a good title, expressing the essence of the Gospel Call, that all who hear about Jesus Christ are welcome to learn what He has to offer and what He can do for them.

Jesus’ offer is beyond your imagination and wildest dreams.

You are welcome to listen to the Free Offer of the Gospel here.

This is a good blogpost for today, the 50th anniversary of my beginning seriously my Bible commentary, which continues to the present day. I have commented on the whole Bible, including the difficult passages of Scripture, and I continue to progress it until I will be no longer fit to add to it.

Bunyan also wrote Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, composed during his 12-year imprisonment for refusing to stop preaching the Gospel. It is autobiographical, documenting his spiritual journey with its early spiritual struggle to determine if there was grace for such a sinner as himself. He was fearful that he had sinned against the Holy Ghost and thus had no hope of forgiveness. He received no enlightenment from the local Church of England cleric but finally he found relief in Scripture itself. The title derives from 1Tim 1:15.

There are many useful books written in prison, such as the apostle Paul’s epistles in the Bible’s New Testament. Samuel Rutherford’s Letters also come to mind, but Bunyan’s writings are notable. He also began The Pilgrim’s Progress in prison.

Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ is an exegetical book, opening up “All whom the Father gives Me shall come to Me, and I will certainly not reject anyone who comes to Me’ Jn 6:37. God bless my readers on this 50th anniversary.

Links:

10 Oct 2026: Come and Welcome to Jesus Christ is available as a PDF.

13 Oct 2026: the revival of modern Hebrew began 145 years ago today on 13 Oct 1881.

I am familiar with other branches of Christ’s visible church and I critique many unbiblical doctrines promoted by these, but zugological balance necessitates the critique of those that are nearer home. I have already done so with evangelical errors but Presbyterianism itself needs not only a critique from within, but also it needs a Reformation.

Although I critique systems of doctrine and different ecclesiologies, I no longer have much time to read the writings of such groups and I prefer to study Scripture and to see how it impacts upon the current civil and ecclesiastical scene for this blog.

Inevitably, I continue to read Presbyterian writers and listen to their sermons and lectures.

I critique current Presbyterianism because I am regularly surrounded by unbiblical behaviour and this needs Reformation.

There is much to critique and Presbyterian writings and opinions are those with which I am most familiar.

Not alone

Presbyterianism is not alone in this need. I interact with many Christians of different persuasions and they also see the need for reformation of their own fellowships. Indeed, I am now acquainted with a growing group of men who have abandoned their former fellowships or been disfellowshipped by them so that it feels like David in the cave of Adullam where “every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him” 1Sam 22:1-2.

Which prejudices am I thinking about?

The greatest prejudice is that there is no need to reform Presbyterianism.  Although people may acknowledge Semper Reformanda, “always reforming”, in practice it oftens happens in a worldly direction and rarely in a biblical direction.  There is a need for biblical Reformation.

There is a list of things that need to be reformed in Presbyterianism, but this blogpost highlights only Presbyterian prejudices. All Christians have prejudices but this blogpost is about prejudices among presbyterians.

Most Presbyterian churches do not promote the spirit of Presbyterianism – most of them have never heard of the term or concept – yet this is the manner through which any congregation or group of congregations will manifest the Spirit of Christ. Brotherly love is the mark of the godly and where it is missing there is desperate need for the application of a presbyterian corrective. What is that? Precisely. What is it? How rarely is it seen!

Prejudices of preachers

One may expect trained Presbyterian preachers to understand the prejudices of their own heart, and they will readily acknowledge this difficulty and danger, but the practical solution to coping with prejudice is proper biblical exegesis of Scripture, which in my experience is lamentably lacking.

… and the people

Zealous and earnest prayer does not prevent praying Christians from being full of prejudice Act 12:5,15. We need careful exegesis of Scripture to inform our opinions, not peer-group pressure, beating people into conformity to the prevailing view.

Prejudice in discipline

Church discipline, or rather its frequent abuse, is a significant cause of disunity among Presbyterians. People leave ecclesiastical fellowships, and churches split, because of the abuse of church discipline, frequently derived from prejudice.  This makes the topic very relevant and important.  Until it is rectified, churches will continue to split and diminish their Christian witness in the community. It does not occur to many disciplinarians that their prejudicial discipline brings the largest reproach upon Christ’s cause, often greater than that of any individual.

When preachers excommunicate various biblical characters long since dead, it is no wonder that church discipline excommunicates living saints. Demas continues to be declared an apostate quite regularly Ps 64:4. King Saul is included in such prejudicial opinions because of his malicious and murderous attitude toward David and his consulting the witch of Endor at the end of his life, an opinion almost succumbing to Roman catholic theology with its “last rites” to ensure a person dies well. I prefer to follow king David’s own assessment of Saul. He knew him better than any of us do, and better than those who manifest prejudicial opinions so easily. David would do no harm to Saul, calling him “the Lord’s anointed” to his dying day, and even beyond, when he wept over his death 2Sam 1:12. He asked his slayer: “How were you not afraid to stretch forth your hand to destroy the LORD’S anointed?” 2Sam 1:14. However, our modern Presbyterians are not afraid to give their thumbs-down verdict upon king Saul. So it goes on.  Rather, the ambiguity about Saul’s final state is a warning to all of us who read about his life to beware of presumption, to see the effects of disobedience, and not to leave a Question Mark over our final state but to “give diligence to make your heavenly calling and eternal election sure” 2Pe 1:10, for some fail to do so 2Pe 1:9. I mention these examples to highlight current and demonstrable prejudice among preachers.

David prayed for his dying son born to Bathsheba, and he expected to meet him in heaven 2Sam 12:15,23 but he articulates no such hope for dead Absalom 2Sam 18:33, nor does he comment on king Saul’s final state, but many a modern Presbyterian has no such difficulty. The real difficulty with Saul’s case is in proper biblical exegesis, to be preferred to the snatch exegesis so beloved among prejudicial exegetes.

Within the past month of beginning to compose this blogpost in July 2026, I have read or heard these prejudicial assessments of Demas and Saul,  and even John Bunyan’s call to the ministry has been questioned. Nor are these sentiments new. I recall a godly man saying to me 30 years ago that he doubted that David could be a member in the presbyterian church he attended, referring to David’s adultery and his conspiring to murder Uriah the Hittite. There is room for improved study of Christian experiential behaviour from Scripture before prejudicial opinions are applied to living saints.

“There are two extremes relative to the administration of church discipline which members of church courts would do well always to guard against. There is the danger of loose and lax sentimentalism overcoming one’s better judgment on the one hand, and a stern unrelenting rigidity impervious to evidence of repentance, on the other.” Church discipline can be too lax or too strict. Each arises from different prejudices: the one arising from favouritism or sentimentality, the other arising from prejudicial animosity; neither are biblical.

As most presbyterians are Calvinistic in doctrine, in theory at least, one might expect them to address more fully in their sermons topics such as backsliding, analysing king Saul’s and king David’s murderous behaviours, biblical restoration Ps 23:3, Hos 14:1-4, Gal 5:1, Gal 6:1-3, self-examination 2Cor 13:5, and “by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” 2Cor 4:2.

Prejudicial opinions are often based upon just one or two facts, the mote in a brother’s eye.  With regard to Demas, it arises from the misinterpretation of one verse in the Bible, perpetuated by significant preachers and adopted by others.  There are others in Scripture who suffer at the hands of prejudicial exegesis, such as the prodigal son’s elder brother, who is maligned like king Saul. Wrong exegesis is damaging, especially when  prejudice emerges in Christian affairs, sometimes manifesting ungodly passions. “Come, see my zeal for the Lord!” 2K 10:16.

The prejudice among godly people needs to be noted and corrected.

Progress

The Christian church should make progress from generation to generation, not repeating the mistakes of earlier ones, but correcting them.

I have recently written an article on the spirit of Presbyterianism, which I hope will help to promote biblical fellowship instead of prejudice. Those who will not learn, may one day fall victim themselves to the prejudicial and condemnatory attitudes they too readily tolerate and accommodate at present.

Let them learn to distinguish biblical judgment arising from the Spirit of God’s teaching in Scripture from a worldly attitude arising from gut feelings.

Clear blue water

This will involve reforming congregational life; reviving catechising in one form or more; using the talents and developing the skills Christ has given to His Church; office-bearers reassessing their role in the congregation and wider church … unless prejudices will inhibit this for another generation or two.

Why have I written this blogpost at this time?  I was provoked into highlighting these prejudices by reading Presbyterian articles about Roman catholicism, Roman catholic baptism, the continued demonizing of Demas, along with King Saul.

One can come nearer to home with an illustration.  Have you recently experienced a conversation that amounts to “Are you for or against such-and-such a person?” – or as UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is reputed to ask – “Is he one of us?”  Particular persons become a touchstone by which one’s own position is measured. Political parties like to put “clear blue water” between each other to help voters vote for them. Christian churches are not in such a situation although there are those who show their party spirit 1Cor 1:12.

Denominationalism

Denominationally, there are those who wish to emphasize how unlike or how far distant they are from other branches of Christ’s visible church. Such a spirit will not progress the Christian unity that biblical presbyterianism teaches and promotes.  They ought not to say, “I have no need of thee” 1Cor 12:21.  How are they going to discover how they need each other without biblical interaction?

This blogpost is not speaking about church unity, but Christian behaviour.

Besides, church unity may be discussed only in terms of Presbyterian unity, as if there is no unity of spirit among baptist, presbyterian, charismatic and Dispensational Christians. How is each group of misguided, godly Christians going to learn and correct each other if they do not speak to one another? and that in a godly manner, not with Shiboleths that merely repeat and emphasize the tradition in which one lives, which acts as peer-group pressure, which the apostle Paul tells us to lay aside Heb 12:1.

Others have addressed the issues in the past. Christian Unity and Church Union: Some Primary Principles by Benjamin B. Warfield in The Presbyterian Banner, 1905, defended the Right and Duty of ‘Denominations’ but he attributed Church Union to the ‘Dangers of Sentimentalism’, the danger of resiling from “what is best in worship, what is soundest in organisation, what is truest in faith”. This was over 100 years ago.

What progress has been made since then?  What biblical exposition and application has been seen or attained in the past century? We need to be Working towards the Millennium, the title of one of my draft publications, which identifies the biblical teaching on the subject.  We need to see the biblical destination and work towards it.

It is not enough for Presbyterians to criticise Baptists, Charismatics and Dispensationalists. Rather let the biblical principles of Presbyterianism operate and they will commend themselves to each branch of Christ’s visible church. 1. “the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee” 1Cor 12:21; 2. “in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” Pro 11:14, Pro 15:22 and Pro 24:6; 3. “But we have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God” 2Cor 4:2. 4. “all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas” 1Cor 3:21-22.

Prejudice is a thief, stealing the benefits one could receive from other Christians. There is no need to try to join reluctant churches together, jealous of their own prejudices, but let congregations rather begin behaving as Christians and learn to recognize God’s grace wherever it manifests itself.

What will it look like?

Biblical Presbyterianism is not a Shiboleth but Christianity in action, living and demonstrating a spiritual godly profitable intelligent and useful life and conversation in its members.  “Wisdom has been justified from all the children she has produced” Lk 7:35.

Links:

1 Nov 2017: Scotland needs a Reformer.

21 Nov 2023: Reforming the Reformed Church.

6 May 2025: Church courts or helpers?

24 Jul 2026: The spirit and form of Presbyterianism.

20 Aug 2026: The Reformation of Presbyterianism

7 Oct 2026: Presbyterian prejudices.

15 Oct 2026: “How can newcomers to the faith be better informed about the Bible’s teachings? One tried and tested method is by catechising — asking the right questions not so much to test people’s knowledge as to guide them in the right answers. Samuel Rutherford wrote his own catechism.”

I had intended to draw attention to his manifest inadequacy as leader of this country, but his latest move only serves to show how much of a puppet he is, moved by others to do their bidding.

His first Bill in the House of Commons blatantly promotes Roman catholicism, under the smoke-screen of removing an anomaly and of promoting equality by including the Jews in his Bill.

What am I writing about? 

The Roman catholic media is quick to publicize the matter.

The Times had reported earlier on 11 September 2026 that Burnham found it “unacceptable for there to be a legislative bar against people of any faith performing all the functions of my office. The government will therefore introduce a Bill at the earliest opportunity to correct this antiquated and archaic anomaly.” We can now see how much of a priority it is for him.

Burnham’s incompetence has already manifested itself in his comments on the Scottish constitutional position in the United Kingdom, showing that he is not on top of his brief. His dogmatism is already seen in his unilateral creation of Number 10 of the North.

He blunders on with this significant change, no doubt encouraged by his Roman catholic backers but, worse, by the weakness of King Charles III’s understanding of the Christian religion and the king’s willingness to sell out the Church of England to the Roman catholic pope in Rome.

Unilateral dogmatism

Burnham’s unilateral behaviour is seen in his establishing a Number 10 of the North without so much as a “by your leave”. This took significant planning, but there was no public nor parliamentary consultation. He is playing “catch me if you can”. The criminal fraternity discovered during Tony Blair’s time in office that the criminal justice system was not fit to catch their crimes, and now criminals brazenly steal from retailers. This attitude has gradually seeped into the rest of society where people simply push ahead with their agenda and wait for others to catch up on them. Keir Starmer did so as Prime Minister and Burnham is following in his steps.

Burnham has shown where his heart lies but he does not have the capacity to work out, on his own, how to implement all these changes in his first months in power. They demonstrate that he is a puppet in the hands of international forces bearing down upon Britain. While some have legitimately complained about the overweaning influence of the UN, WHO, EU, WEF and other international bodies, such as Common Purpose, upon Britain’s national affairs, only this website has included the international influence of the Roman catholic pope in Rome.

Burnham’s move was evidently well prepared in advance and just as Bill Clinton struck quickly with his pet project when he became US President, and Tony Blair struck when leaving the office of British Prime Minister, so Andy Burnham has shown where his real interests lie. Possibly he is repaying a debt to his spiritual paymasters.

When I predicted that Rome would quickly publicise Britain’s first Roman catholic Prime Minister, I did not expect that it would go further than this and that it would strike at the Church of England. It confirms the reasons behind this legislation that Burnham seeks to overturn. “It has been found by experience …” says British legislation, and once again Britain is experiencing what happens when a Roman Catholic gains supreme authority.

Puppet leadership

Andy Burnham does not have the capacity to dream up the changes he has already made in his short time as British Prime Minister.

The ease with which Andy Burnham’s coup secured him the premiership can hardly be called a coronation so much as simply stepping over the doorstep of Number 10. He was swept along by forces larger than himself and he faced no serious challenge in his pursuit of the top job. For a few months of the summer recess he hid from the scrutiny of the House of Commons but seems to have been secretly planning a number of sudden changes. When he did emerge to face Prime Minister’s Questions, he bungled and put his foot in it.

He has produced chaos among the four constituent areas of the UK as the leaders of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Sinn Féin and even the Irish Republic met in Cardiff to capitalise on Burnham’s ignorant comments about the constitutional position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.

This is a bad start, but no wonder, for he is not Prime Ministerial material.

His first overseas visit was to Ukraine, following his predecessor Keir Starmer’s unilateral promises to Ukraine without parliamentary discussion.

Whose agenda is he implementing?

He is not on top of his Prime Ministerial brief and his real agenda is appearing on the sly, a sleight-of-hand brief, Government by stealth.

His first Bill mentioned above has not been prepared without behind-the-scenes consultations, the support of the Roman catholic hierarchy and possibly even the failing Anglican hierarchy and the monarch. It gives encouragement to the anti-monarchists, the National Secular Society who are said to have promoted the Bill, who will continue to campaign for the disestablishment of the Church of England. It is almost enough to turn a Protestant Unionist into a separatist and who can say where this Bill will end.

Where are we now?

Commentators do not seem bothered by the quality of our new Prime Minister. Possibly they have been desensitized by seven Prime Ministers in 10 years since David Cameron in 2016, who demonstrated how incompetent he was.

However, already there is a list of national concerns under Burnham’s leadership. Where is he leading the country?

His constitutional changes about Number 10 of the North have already been implemented and his constitutional changes about the Church of England have already been presented to Parliament as the first Bill of his premiership.

Commentators are concerned about his commitment to the defence of the country. After the Chagos Islands fiasco, already the sharks are smelling blood about the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar. Like Keir Starmer, they sense a weak Prime Minister.

Little wonder that Burnham’s leadership has led to a discussion about breaking up the United Kingdom.

Along with this are proposals to return to the clutches of the European Union.

This is a bad start for Andy Burnham; but no wonder, for he is not Prime Ministerial material.

Others have noted the build up of a cult of celebrity [at 2’08] around Burnham, but he does not have the capacity far less the charisma to be a celebrity. He has helped to dilute the central power of the UK [at 16’10, 16’45] with his mayoral schemes. His support for an uncapped tourist levy gives tax-raising powers to mayors, in line with his support of the Global Mayors Forum, another international influence on the UK.

The UK, Church of England and monarch deserve what is coming to them. This Bill is simply a step in the process of the Roman catholic take-over of the monarchy and the Church of England. The ungrateful nature of the monarchy, coupled with its effete attitude towards the Lord Jesus Christ and its support of false religion will result in a constitutional crisis that will make this Bill pale in comparison. Andy Burnham will not be up to it; but no matter, the puppet will do as he is told.

Links:

20 Apr 2026: Britain’s puerile leadership.

29 Apr 2026: another wish-list item has been announced in Andy Burnham’s speech to the Labour Party conference. He wants to rejoin the European Union. Another Catch-Me-if-you-can policy, but not quite as easy to implement as his Number 10 of the North. It is just as undemocratic, without any consultation beyond his own say-so and his private cabal behind the scenes.

This Bill will legislate for atheism.

Supporters of this Bill claim that it is about relieving pain and suffering.  This argument can only hold water on the assumption that there is no pain nor suffering after death – in other words, it is based upon practical atheism.

I drew attention to this earlier this year.

The following letter was sent to the mainstream media ahead of today’s debate in Parliament.

“Our legislators in the House of Commons need to consider that The Terminally Ill Adults Bill to be debated this Friday is legislating for atheism.

“Supporters of this Bill claim that it is about relieving pain and suffering.  This argument can only hold water on the assumption that there is no pain nor suffering after death – in other words, it is based upon practical atheism.

“Government neutrality is inadequate when this Bill strikes at the Christian constitution of the country.

“Andy Burnham, the Prime Minister, effectively muzzles his own miniisters from stating their personal position.  He writes: “they should avoid being part of the debate”.  His reasons are not adequate.  His ministers need only make it clear that they are speaking for themselves and not the Government nor their Department.

“Some activists cannot accept defeat, and like guerilla warfare they keep coming back till they lock in their own position.  They are poor losers.”

Similar Bills in Scotland and England have recently been voted down because of the lack of safeguards. It is a very real concern even for secular people.

The reality of the slippery slope argument

The MAID (Medical Assistance In Dying) provision in Canada was introduced in 2016 with the requirement for a “reasonably foreseeable” death. This has been modified post-haste and the criteria widened to include those with mental illness.

Assisted dying is now the fourth largest cause of death in Canada.

Doctors in Canada are renewing a push to expand the nation’s assisted suicide regime to begin euthanizing newborn babies.

The same is already seen in the UK where the provisions of the 1967 Abortion Act have been stretched to such an extent that most abortions are now social abortions rather than medical necessities. The recent decriminalising of abortion up to the birth in England and Wales is part of this death culture in British society, and Scottish killers want to “equalize” the law on each side of the border by legislating for the same in Scotland. So much for the pussyfooting with 22-23-24 week limits – secularism has gone for the nuclear option for abortion up till birth, and some in Canada are going beyond this to include newborn babies. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This shows that “safeguards” are no such things but simply sops introduced to deceive the unwary about the future intentions of these killers.

The name of the promoter of this Bill is Lauren Edwards MP, a name that can go down in infamy along with David Steel who promoted the Abortion Act 1967 which has killed over 11 million babies. She has been a Labour MP for two years but has seized the opportunity through a Private Member’s Bill to open the floodgates to killing untold numbers of people. Who would think that such youthful looks could kill? The year of her birth is not available in public records. She was born in Melbourne, Australia, in a State where “conversion therapy” is forbidden except by the State, which is forcibly converting Christian ministers and teaching them how to pray and preach. In her speech, she suggested that the Bill should simply be passed on to the House of Lords without further scrutiny. Her concern for the dying is not matched by concern for the vulnerable.

This is the price Britain pays for having abandoned Christianity. Slowly some people are wakening up to the problem, but there is little evidence that they know the solution to the problem. Years ago I warned of the right-wing backlash; there are some signs of this arising.

Update:

11 Sep 2026: Praise be to the Lord. The House of Commons rejected the Bill and it died its own death although Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP who introduced the original legislation last year, aims to resurrect it next year. A grateful Thank You to the 286 MPs who voted against this horrendous Bill.