Article

AN ANSWER TO FOUR LECTURES DELIVERED IN ENNISKILLEN CATHEDRAL BY THE BISHOP OF CLOGHER RICHARD HANSON

by

REV. IVAN FOSTER

Minister of Lisbellaw Free Presbyterian Church

Published as a booklet in 1970

The rage of the Bishop against the rock of Holy Scripture

 

Chapter IV 

The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible

In his first lecture the Bishop seeks, as he tells us, to “clear the ground”. What the Bishop means by this is later revealed. He is out to remove from the people’s minds all “obstacles” to the introduction of his own doctrines. He commences this clearing operation with characteristic subtlety. He wanted to make it clear, we are told, that he “did not believe Christianity to be an entirely fluid thing wholly subject to changes in intellectual fashion, a matter of subjective opinion with no unchanging or eternal element in it”. Having thus reassured us with this statement he continues: “But” – and HERE COMES THE POISONED BARB – he was giving these lectures “in order to point out that Christianity in one sense always had changed, must be expected to go changing, and was manifestly changing at the present time”. He goes on to say: “What we think is good old Christianity, the genuine, original, unchanging faith -our faith, of course – almost certainly is not what the first Christians believed”. The Bishop tells the truth here – quite unintentionally, of course. HIS CHRISTIANITY IS NOT THE FAITH OF THE FIRST CHRISTIANS. What the Bishop is maintaining, of course, is that Christianity should NOT be expected to be the same as that of the early believers. There is nothing wrong with us believing something that they disbelieved or disbelieving what they believed. We can simplify the whole matter by saying the Bishop believes that Christians today are not tied to the Bible as the early Christians were.

Thus the clearing begins. He goes on now to finish the task by declaring: “Another important assumption which will govern these lectures is that the hypothesis that the Bible is accurate and exact and without mistakes in every sense in every part is an IMPOSSIBLE ONE”. So, step by step Dr. Hanson levers his audience away from the Bible. He seeks to destroy any tendency on the part of his audience to return to the Bible by stating that it is not without mistakes and errors. He gives us his opinion of the Bible. “THE DOCUMENTS OF THE BIBLE HAVE THE SAME HISTORICAL AUTHORITY AS SIMILAR DOCUMENTS OF THEIR TIME, NO MORE AND NO LESS.” There you have it. The site is clear now for the building of the Bishop’s edifice, a building that will consist of falsehoods and lies, deceptions and delusions, and which will fail its occupants on the great day of God’s wrath.

“Judgement also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies and the waters shall overflow the hiding place. And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it” (Isaiah 28 : 17-18). (more…)

I downloaded the following document from a Free Presbyterian Church website yesterday.

I wish to set before the Moderator and the Clerk of our Presbytery and the readership of ‘The Burning Bush’, two points from the ‘Statement on Ecclesiastical Separation’ as issued by our Presbytery, and to ask some questions which arise with regards recent procedures sanctioned by the Presbytery.

---

FPC Position on Ecclesiastical Separation

Statement from the Free Presbyterian Church in Ulster General Presbytery

OUR STAND ON SEPARATION

The Scriptures lay before Christ’s Church the will of God pertaining to the doctrine of separation. With regard to this doctrine the following points are made clear in God’s Word. (It is important to underline that the points outlined below that present the Biblical teaching on separation, constitute a summary of what the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster has stated, believed and preached during its entire history).

---

The following is a notice of an amendment I submitted to the Presbytery back in 1998, in the days when Dr Paisley was Moderator.

“October 1998 Notice of Motion

Rev I Foster proposed the following notice of motion: Reaffirmation of our stand on separation from Ecumenism.

“That this Presbytery reaffirms its opposition to the modern Ecumenical Movement and reiterates its call to God’s people to separate from all forms of fellowship with this end-time apostasy.

Furthermore,  in keeping with our position on Ecumenism, the Presbytery calls upon all ministers, elders and members of committees, irrespective of their civic duties, to refrain from attendance at or participation in any ecumenical community service, especially those that have followed in the wake of recent terrorist bombings since such gatherings have clearly become an effective means of advancing and strengthening the cause of ecumenism and must not, therefore, have any form of endorsement from Free Presbyterians”.

Rev Foster stated he did not feel that as a denomination we were tottering on the edge of compromise. However, he reminded members that in scripture we often read of God’s people reaffirming their position. He said, “In the wake of recent bombings tremendous pressure had been exerted by Ecumenical churches on the Protestant people, especially those who hold civic office.”

He stated he felt it was wrong for Free Presbyterians to attend Ecumenical services no matter where they were held. Priests of Rome he said were brought onto platforms and accepted as ministers of Christ. He felt there was need to raise a banner high for all to see and for sessions to take note that they are to be guardians of our stand.

He asked that if agreed the motion should be carried in our magazines and as we are approaching Reformation Sunday ministers preach on the issue.

Clarification was sought as to what constituted an ecumenical civic service. The question of participation in Remembrance services and services of the Loyal Orders was raised. The Moderator stated he considered it was one organised by the clergy of the town for the purpose of promoting ecumenism. He said that with that interpretation put on the motion he would support it. Upon being seconded by Rev. T. Baxter the motion was adopted. It was agreed that an advert reaffirming our opposition to Romanism and Ecumenism should be placed in the newspaper.’ (more…)