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 witings 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, 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.

Forced Adoption is a countrywide scandal that was imposed upon 250,000 mothers in the UK between 1949 and 1976, with the connivance of charities, churches, health professionals and social services.

After a 20-year campaign, the Scottish Parliament eventually apologized for this scandal in 2023. This was followed by a 2023 apology in the Welsh Parliament and then a 2026 apology in the UK Parliament.

Central to this campaign is Scottish Christian Party member, Marion McMillan. She was “the first woman to speak out” about this scandal, and during the apology, former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon acknowledged “one of the most ardent campaigners for it [the Scottish Parliamentary apology] has been Marion McMillan”.

Marion notes that all her references to Scripture were edited out of the BBC documentary.  Marion was often helped by Ps 147:3 in her 20-year campaign. She writes: “they never mentioned I joined the Christian party, and how much that helped me to talk about my past”.  I first heard Marion speak about it at the Scottish Christian Party conference in St Andrews in November 2006.

One can read the spirit by their editing out both the Scripture and the Christian Party.  They want a story, but not what motivated Marion and kept her going for so long.  This is another scandal, cancelling Scripture and the Christian Party.

I mentioned Marion’s role in my recent interview with Diane Rasmussen of UK Column at 16’53 minutes.

UK Column featured the Stolen Babies documentary on its news programme yesterday at 41:50 minutes and gave further critique of the BBC about its motive in producing the documentary and for its failure to investigate or critique the cover-up involved.  It pointed out that the scandal continues in Britain to the present. I can confirm the stealing of children from their mother in Scotland.

Forced adoption is an international scandal, alongside child trafficking. In Argentina they are still trying to trace missing children.

This is yet another example of complicity by ungodly officialdom in scandalous behaviour. The difficulty uncovering the scandal of the rape gangs in England and throughout the UK demonstrates how ungodliness has taken control of major institutions in this country.

Roman catholicism never learned from the Protestant Reformation, but instead it battened down the hatches and carried on worse than before.  This is a natural reaction, and not many people learn from other people’s criticisms. Romanism had its Counter-Reformation, anathematising biblical doctrine in its Council of Trent, added new dogmas about the Virgin Mary, and its pope in Rome was declared to be infallible when speaking ex cathedra (how grand!) about faith and morals. With its global dominance it sees no need to reform and simply ignores what it does not want to hear.

Similarly, with current Presbyterianism. It also has a global reach and with this there is plenty of scope for Diotrephes “who loves the pre-eminence” 3Jn 1:9, to strut himself (or, increasingly, herself) upon the global stage. This behaviour is native to the sinful heart of man, which is unwilling to admit nor accept its mistakes with any readiness.

Current Presbyterianism is not analysing why it is failing to address the needs of our times.  The Church of Scotland is closing and selling its buildings at an alarming rate.  The next generation is not attending its services. Its Gospel does not appeal. It is running out of smaller churches on whose personnel and numbers it has drawn for so long throughout the past century.

Most analysis, if there is any, is about church structures and telling others about the need to rally to one or another flag. There is minimal biblical analysis. The little use made of the Bible is misinterpreted or misapplied. Jn 17 is wrongly repeated as if Jesus commanded His apostles to be one Jn 17:11 (were they not already one?). It is misused in the tiresome ecumenical manner to force organisational unity Jn 17:21 in a shotgun marriage.

Self-examination

As I composed this blogpost, I read at family worship “so were the churches established in the faith, and increased in number daily” Act 16:5. This does not happen nowadays. The Presbyterian church has lost its way. It is not following Him Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life. It is following ecclesiastical protocols, following its leaders, failing to heed the Master’s warning and command: “Leave them alone: they are blind leaders of the blind, and if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch” Mat 15:14. Current ecclesiastical structures and leadership are inhibiting its spiritual growth. Jesus commands: “Leave them alone.”

You may think that this is not true of your ecclesiastical fellowship. Consider Jesus’ charge to His own disciples: “Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod” Mk 8:15. Do you know how this applies to yourself and to your own fellowship? Possibly you think that Jesus’ words applied only to His own disciples. Really? They are long since gone from this world but Jesus’ words remain. Jesus’ disciples missed His point completely, so Jesus continued: “Having eyes, do you not see? and having ears, do you not hear? and do you not remember?” Are you also missing the point? Do you not remember what the Bible says Christianity used to be like? Can you not see and hear that your eccleasiastical fellowship is not building up the saints in the faith, and not increasing in number daily?

As for self-examination, elements of Roman catholicism were retained, unrecognized in the early documents of Presbyterianism. What was intended to be biblical, presbyterian re-structuring of the church has become an ungodly behemoth on which reputations are built, almost imitating the whore mounting the beast in the Book of Revelation Rev 17:1-3. This capability has promoted self-aggrandisement and, worse, legalism along with the legalistic frame built into the system of church courts. An adversorial approach has developed in presbyterianism which is interfering with both its spirituality and its usefulness.

Legalism in its ecclesiastical structures is bad enough; inhibiting proper Christian fellowship is worse. “The eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee” 1Cor 12:21, but this is the pressing need of the hour. Do you know how you need other Christians? How will you find out? Can you do so without speaking to one another?

Current Presbyterianism needs more than oil on its rusty cogs; the wheels are out of alignment and some wheels are missing.

Preaching

People-centred preaching has replaced exegetical preaching of Scripture. Ecumaniacs often quote John 17:21 but do you hear them quoting Jn 17:9 in its context of Christian unity? Discriminating, appealing and welcoming preaching needs to commend itself to the consciences of its hearers 2Cor 4:2.

Jesus says: “Come unto Me, all you who labour and are burdened, and I will give you rest” Mat 11:28.

The current, poor preaching needs to be reformed. We need exegetical preaching which shows people how Gospel doctrines emerge from the Word of God. Systematic and historical theology have their place in the classroom but we don’t need lectures in the pulpit. We need the living Word of God to inform and move everyone’s conscience. Jesus said: “It is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life” Jn 6:63. We need this in the pulpit.

The Defence of the Gospel

“I am set for the defence of the Gospel.”

Philippians 1:17

It is one thing to preach the Gospel; it is another thing to defend the Gospel.

Institutional Presbyterianism has failed to protect the Gospel in churches with unconverted office-bearers. The Declaratory Act Era in worldwide Presbyterianism allowed unfaithful men to lead the church astray. National churches are now failing their nations. There is a biblical solution to this, and it should be taught and practised.

Congregational growth

We need both internal, spiritual growth and external organical growth. The roots of the tree grow downwards before its branches grow upwards.

Congregational fellowship needs to be biblically organised in order to make better use of the gifts and grace Christ has given to His church. Preachers and elders need to learn the apostle Peter’s teaching about oversight 1Pe 5:1-5. Congregations need to rediscover their purpose and to learn to function as the body of Christ.

Presbyterianism needs to reform – Presbyterianism needs a biblical Reformation.

Links:

7 Apr 2012: improving Congregational Fellowship and Presbyterian oversight.

6 May 2025: Presbyterian privilege and assistance.

24 Jul 2026: the Spirit and Form of Presbyterianism.

This is inadequate.  This describes the form, not the substance nor the spirit of biblical Presbyterianism.

Wikipedia has two entries indicating the double usage of the term Presbyterianism, but failing to explain its spirit. One entry applies it to the churches that are governed by Presbyterian policy, and the other entry applies it to presbyteral polity itself, which it defines as “a method of church governance (“ecclesiastical polity”) typified by the rule of assemblies of presbyters, or elders.”

In its main article, Wikipedia states: “Presbyterianism is a historically Reformed Protestant tradition named after its form of church government by representative assemblies of elders, known as “presbyters.”

So, according to Wikipedia, it is “a tradition” determined by its “form of church government”.

This is inadequate. Presbyterianism is more than a form of church government and it is more than a tradition. This inadequate thinking has allowed current Presbyterianism to become legalistic, bureaucratic and quasi-episcopalian.

The nature and spirit of Presbyterianism

The nature or essence of Presbyterianism is the biblical teaching that believers are all members of the body of Christ and as “the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of thee” 1Cor 12:21 so these believers need to interact with each other in a manner that develops the whole body of Christ Eph 4:11-16 and identifies, employs and develops the gifts and graces of each believer.

This does not mean that there is a free-for-all in the Christian church because Scripture makes it plain that there are ruling elders in the Christian church Heb 13:7,17 known as ‘presbyters’, elders or overseers. These office-bearers commend themselves by “watching for your soul” and they demonstrate this by showing their knowledge and application of Scripture in their personal speech and behaviour, and by their ability to encourage and develop mature Christian behaviour in others.

The term Presbyterianism derives from the biblical term ‘presbyter’ and highlights that there is biblical rule and authority in the Christian church to promote unity and develop Christian behaviour. It corrects any idea that there is no governance in the church. However, it is too easy for presbyters to adopt worldly attitudes Lk 22:24-26 and to “lord it over” God’s heritage 1Pe 5:3. This is the very antithesis of presbyterianism, but it is common.

Presbyters feed the flock of God, willingly and not for money 1Pe 5:1-3. They are exampes to the flock and do not lord themselves over it. They watch for your souls. Such presbyters commend themselves to every man’s conscience.

“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.”

2Corinthians 4:2

Thus, says Peter: “You younger men, submit yourselves to the elder men. Yes, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble” 1Pe 5:5. This is the spirit of presbyterianism. 

Presbyteries

At the Presbytery level, the essence of Presbyterianism is the biblical principle to confer and make use of the wisdom of “a multitude of counsellors” to guide the Christian church, extolled three times in the book of Proverbs.

“Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety” Pro 11:14.
“Without counsel purposes are disappointed: but in the multitude of counsellors they are established” Pro 15:22.
“For by wise counsel thou shalt make thy war: and in multitude of counsellors there is safety” Pro 24:6.

This collective wisdom aims to benefit believers at the congregational level, the usual level at which believers operate. However, ecclesiastical structures can become a stepping-stone to self-aggrandisement, seen too often in clerks, moderators, conveners of committees, editors of magazines, treasurers and whatever.

The spirit of Presbyterianism esteems one’s brethren and especially biblical teachers highly in love 1Tim 5:13, considers that others are better than oneself Php 2:3, studies in what respect this is so in order to emulate them Php 2:4, so that the whole body of Christ may grow together Eph 4:11-14 into a profitable and functional congregation of the Lord Num 16:3, Num 27:17, Jos 22:16, considering that one might be mistaken and thus requiring to confer with others using the biblical principles of Christian prayerful discussion and the application of Scripture to one’s Christian behaviour.

Abuse of church authority

Too often the spirit of Presbyterianism is abandoned in favour of “following my leader”, even in presbyterian churches.

Episcopacy and Independent governance do not follow these principles, far less does “Diotrephes who loves to have the preeminence” 3Jn 1:9, a spirit that may found in any Christian group. Episcopacy plainly contradicts the Presbyterian spirit and Independency is simply quasi-episcopacy “writ small”, with large fishes in smaller ponds.

The Roman catholic pope in Rome has gone further and usurped the position of Christ as Head of the Church, and of the Holy Spirit as the unifying spirit of the Church, and blasphemously assumed to himself the unique name of the Father Jn 17:11. Presbyterian biblical unity is the answer to papal, imposed uniformity and subservience.

Inconsistency

The Church of Christ is not perfect and inconsistency abounds. An episcopalian or independent Christian may behave as a presbyterian in spirit although worshipping in an inconsistent setting. Similarly, many presbyterians worship in presbyterian churches where the minister or a significant elder may throw their supposed weight about like Dioterphes. This is why church government alone does not ensure a balanced Christian congregation, but why the spirit of Presbyterianism is so important for a healthy congregation and denomination.

The word ‘Presbyterianism’ derives from the biblical ‘presbyter’ and not everyone is a presbyter. However, the biblical principles of a presbyter are what makes the spirit of Presbyterianism. They rule well and do not have an over-inflated opinion of themselves. The apostle Peter, rather than calling himself the bishop of Rome, and we have no evidence that he was ever in Rome, called himself an elder ‘a co-presbuteros‘ 1Pe 5:1. He goes on to say: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” 1Pe 5:2-3.  The pretended successor of Peter in Rome could learn from this instead of lording it over others. Shame on those Presbyterians who take their lead from this self-aggrandising usurper rather than from the apostle Peter himself.

Christian debate uses biblical exegesis to solve disputes, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, and as the New Testament epistles demonstrate. This is why Sola Scriptura developed as a Reformed mantra in the 16th-century European Reformation. It explains why Rabbinic Judaism and Roman catholic biblical exegesis is so wide of the biblical mark, relying on their respective oral traditions.

Personal application of the Presbyterian spirit to all Christians

Presbyterianism enables a Christian believer to respect Christians in other denominations, to benefit them and to benefit from them, but not to be subservient to them Gal 5:1.

On this principle John Calvin of Geneva conferred with Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, not because he was a royally-appointed archbishop but because Calvin recognized him as a fellow-presbyter.

We would do well to pay attention to the spirit of Presbyterianism and reform current Presbyterianism accordingly.

Links:

20 Aug 2026: The Reformation of Presbyterianism.

The religion of politics is preached by politicians who promise equality, justice and peace on Earth and young people are duped into believing them.

This is not a religion about the salvation of one’s soul but about the improvement of one’s bodily and social conditions. Many people prefer this religion, especially young people.

Once hooked by their preachers, these young people rarely change their religion. Occasionally they may change their political party, but their religion is still about their social conditions.

Teenagers often form life-long opinions at this stage in their life.  Pride prevents them changing their opinion, so it is quite alarming to think that one’s lifelong pathway is determined by teenage opinions and decisions.

When their politics fails to provide what they want, they may change their party.  They do not often change their religion.  Some brave souls do; the rest make do, excusing their disappointments on one thing or another. but not their religion.

The only Person Who will not fail you is your God, Who has patiently waited for you to seek Him through all the failures in your life.  He will not wait for ever but He has given you many intimations of His presence.

Will you turn to Him while there is time?

Links:

27 Apr 2026: Political Christianity.

Various scandals have not helped the public perception of the Corporation, from the top downwards.

When veteran John Humphrys retired from the BBC flagship Today programme, hardly 24 hours had passed before he criticized the BBC’s “liberal bias”.

BBC partiality can be seen in its regular use of pejorative terms applied liberally to public figures, such as “far right”, etc.

It keeps reminding its audience that Tommy Robinson’s real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon. What point is it trying to make? It does not remind its audience that the leader of the Green Party Zack Polansky’s real name is David Paulden. What is the point? Does it not know that Robinson adopted a pseudonym for his own safety and then it became his inevitable branding? What is the point behind this innuendo?

On the subject of safety, BBC is joining the media uproar over Nigel Farage’s finances, although Farage evidently needs to pay security for his own safety. The Good Book says: “he shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy” James 2:13 but few people consider the judgment of God.

The pressure on Farage has provoked him into appealing to the public through a by-election.

This BBC grammar compares with what used to be taught in British schools: “in which he says he will stand”.

BBC standards are slipping. Partiality is one thing, and slipping standards is another. Each points to a culture of mediocrity at the BBC. It may be skilled in media presentation and the dark arts of worldly politics but we expect more from the national broadcaster, not least impartiality, objectivity and truth. Are they listening?

This short blogpost will serve as springboard for further examples of BBC bias as and when they are drawn to my attention.

Updates:

9 Jul 2026: the BBC continues the tendency of attaching “holy” to various islamic items. The 1 p.m. BBC news today referred to the “holy” city of Mashhad where former supreme leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is to be buried today. Why call the city “holy”? What need was there for this? This follows King Charles’ unnecessary Roman catholic use of “holy family” and “the holy month of Ramadan”, terminology followed by Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Sarah Mullally of the Church of England follows suit with puerile servitude to Roman catholicism, and GB News also refers to “the holy father”, adding to the drip-feed indoctrination of the “holiness” of islam and Roman catholicism to the British public.

10 Jul 2026: on UK Column’s 1 p.m. News today, Patrick Henningsen reported from Mashhad, Iran, and spoke about “the holy city of Masshad” and “the holy shrine”. Is this what Jordan Peterson calls “compelled speech”, that is, to report from Iran requires such “respectful” speech, or is it voluntary? If Hennessey is a muslim, one could accept the language, but if he is not, why does UK Column use such language? Like the BBC and GBNews, this goes beyond impartial reporting and adds to the drip-feeding of public opinion.