by Reg Barrow, Copyright, 1997
(URLs and format updated August, 2003)

Much more on Doug Wilson's continued backsliding can be found at:
http://www.swrb.com/newslett/FREEBOOK/DWilson.htm

Still Waters Revival Books
(Reformation resources at great discounts!)
Contact us today for your FREE mail-order catalogue!
4710-37A Ave., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6L 3T5
E-mail: swrb@swrb.com
(780) 450-3730
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com/
(MANY FREE BOOKS on the home page!)

The following debate took place over email and email formatting protocols have been retained.

In email > or >> means something written by a previous writer.

Underscoring before and after an item indicates italics and is usually used to indicate the use of a book or magazine title. Example: _A Brief Defence of Dissociation in the Present Circumstances_, outside of email, would read A Brief Defence of Dissociation in the Present Circumstances.

Asterisks are used to indicate emphasis. Example: "Distinguishing between the *essential* and *constitutional* character of the visible church (as the Reformers' did) would also be useful...", outside of email, would read "Distinguishing between the essential and constitutional character of the visible church (as the Reformers' did) would also be useful..."

The following book chronicles a controversy initiated by

_Credenda/Agenda_ magazine when they published an attack on me in

their "Cave of Adullam" section. In my opinion this attack was clearly in

violation of the ninth commandment.

This episode with Doug Wilson (and _Credenda/Agenda_) evokes imagery

of walking down a long narrow path (the full covenanted testimony for the

truth [Rev. 12:6]), surrounded by darkness (the present apostasy from

covenanted attainments [2 Thes. 2:3] -- especially among professing

Christians and the visible church in its corporate character [Rev. 17:5]), my

way illumined by only a flashlight (the Word of God and the testimony of

faithful martyrs [Rev. 6:9] and other witnesses -- agreeable to the Word of

God [Rev. 6:9]). I and other witnesses press steadfastly and determinedly

onward, waiting for the sun to arise (when the Holy Spirit is poured out in

world transforming power [cf. Ezek. 47:1-12, especially verses 5-12]) and

illuminate not only the narrow path (Matt. 7:14), but the whole earth

(during the coming millennium glory, when the covenants will again be

nationally renewed and the biblical attainments of former generations

vindicated on a massive scale [Isa. 2:2-5, Matt. 13:31-33]). Across this

narrow path, blocking the way to further individual and corporate

sanctification, is a piece of splinter-filled, rotten wood

(_Credenda/Agenda's_ original attack against me for bearing witness, on

Knox Ring, against John Frame's apostasy and idolatry). Not wanting others

to stumble over this obstacle, I bend down to remove it (my use of Matt.

18:15-17 to restore the offenders at _Credenda/Agenda_) and use my

flashlight to illuminate the portion of path it obscured. To my surprise, in

so doing I am confronted with a den of scorpions (the heresies [some

Romish, some Anabaptist, some malignant, some independent, etc.] and

further slanderous accusations of Doug Wilson -- against classical

Protestantism and the biblical attainments of the second Reformation)! My

attempt to exterminate and remove these scorpion-like opinions from the

path of the covenanted Reformation make up much of what follows in this

book.

Before I continue, I must make an important caveat. This is in no way to

say that I judge Doug Wilson (or the others involved at

_Credenda/Agenda_) to be outside the invisible church -- that is for God to

decide. Throughout this book (and above) I am addressing those

statements and actions (1 Cor. 3:12-15, John 7:24, 1 Cor. 2:15) which either

have been published already or which Doug Wilson has agreed to make

public. Furthermore, as will be seen throughout my responses, the question

of what Calvin calls the "true and lawful constitution of the church" or the

"lawful form of the (visible--RB) church" (_Institutes_ 4.2.12) is often in

view. Please be sure to make the distinction between the visible church as

it is *duly constituted* and the "catholic or universal" visible church (or the

visible church as to its *essential* character) -- which "consists of all those

throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their

children" (_Westminster Confession of Faith_ 25:2). This is an essential

biblical distinction which must be made when ecclesiastical questions are

in view (cf. Larry Birger's "The Visible Church: Essence Versus Lawful

Form" free at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/vischu.htm or write

us for this free newsletter). Getting this right would help clear up much of

the fuzzy thinking that permeates the church today. Distinguishing

between the *essential* and *constitutional* character of the visible church

(as the Reformers' did) would also be useful in eliminating a great deal of

the misdirected, misapplied and unnecessary name-calling that has been

bandied about of late (of which Wilson provides many examples

throughout his letters to me). On this point the Session of the Puritan

Reformed Church of Edmonton gives us one of the most mature and

faithful contemporary short summaries of the Reformation position,

"Though it is not necessary that a truly constituted church be absolutely

pure as to the doctrine taught or embraced, as to the ordinances

administered, or the public worship performed, it is, however, necessary

that its constitution be founded upon and agreeable to the Word of God

and that its constitution reflect the light attained to by the purest of

Reformed Churches (for all reformation must be biblical reformation if it is

reformation at all, otherwise it is not a reformation but a deformation, cf.

Phil. 3:16). Wherefore, to adopt a constitution that corrupts the light of

Scripture or the light of reformation is to adopt a false constitution. A false

constitution renders a church and its courts unconstitutional... for a church

to constitutionally adhere to Arminianism, Dispensationalism, or

Charismatic experientialism (false doctrine), singing uninspired hymns or

using instrumental music in public praise (false worship), Episcopacy or

Independency (false government), or unrestricted communion (false

discipline) is to qualify as a constitutionally false church. That is not to say

that there are no believers in churches that are not truly constituted (there

may be many in some cases). Nor is it to imply that ministers or elders

within those churches do not courageously stand for many truths taught in

Scripture. It is simply to say that authority to rule in the church must

come from Christ, and if a church does not have a constitution of which He

approves (as King of His church), then there is no lawful authority to rule

or to administer the ordinances on His behalf. Authority to administer the

divine ordinances on behalf of Christ flows directly from the King and His

constitution. Authority used within His church on any other grounds is an

usurped authority. It is tyranny" (_A Brief Defence of Dissociation in the

Present Circumstances_, pp. 1-2. Free on the web at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BriefDef.htm ).

Those failing to make this fundamental distinction (which is seen

throughout Reformation writings dealing with ecclesiastical matters) are

liable to become trapped by the same error which now ensnares Wilson,

when he falsely labels me (and the other Covenanters in Edmonton) with

the horrible heresy of the Anabaptistic schismatics. This error is refuted

throughout the following debate and in appendix A by Greg Price in his

"Testimony Against the Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism."

Now, to enlarge upon the preceding allegory. After being informed of

_Credenda/Agenda's_ public assault upon my name and my company, I

initially spoke to the elders of the church I attend, seeking counsel as to

how best to proceed. Hoping, as much as possible, to keep this controversy

out of the public eye (for the sake of the brethren at _Credenda/Agenda_

and the broader testimony to the truth [2 Sam. 1:20]), and thinking that a

presentation of the facts of the case would quickly lead

_Credenda/Agenda_ to make their own public retraction, it was decided

that Greg Price (who is the teaching elder at the Puritan Reformed Church

of Edmonton, which I attend) would contact Doug Wilson. Accordingly, Mr.

Price then made four private attempts to resolve the situation brought

about by _Credenda/Agenda's_ publicly distributed false accusations. As

evidenced by the book you now hold, even after these four private

attempts at reconciliation, Doug Wilson was unwilling to repent -- and

actually hurled additional scornful and derisive barbs in our direction. At

this point I began the Matthew 18:15-17 process with Mr. Wilson, in the

hope of reclaiming this brother.

In short, this book follows this controversy as it unfolded after I began the

Matthew 18:15-17 process with Mr. Wilson, though it also includes those

previous items which gave rise to this dispute. The table of contents below

outlines each of the items covered. The most important letters -- i.e. my

second and fifth replies to Wilson and appendix A, Greg Price's "Testimony

Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism" -- are marked with

asterisks. These three sections deal with a number of larger public issues

regarding the individual, church, and state, and help remove this

discussion from the realm of the specific slanders I addressed (appendix B,

my article "Pornography, the Anabaptists and Doug Wilson's Civil

Antinomianism" might also be added to this category). I mark them as

most important not because I seek to minimize the public slander that took

place, but because addressing Wilson’s charges exposed much more serious

differences (Wilson's scorpion-like comments and beliefs) between

_Credenda/Agenda_ and the Covenanted testimony which Still Waters

Revival Books seeks to maintain. Some of the other letters (by Wilson and

myself) probably could have been left out of this collection, because they

add nothing to the more important public issues which we ended up

debating; but I have included them for those who don't mind following all

the rabbit trails that Wilson wanted to explore, hoping to justify himself as

to our original controversy. These items contain much posturing and a

repetition of previously discussed topics and can be skipped over without

missing much in the way of general edification.

My earnest desire is that the reader will engage himself in the **issues**

presented, rather than the personalities and controversy that started this

dispute. Appropriate (indeed, unavoidable) conclusions about Wilson and

many other modern "Reformed" teachers and guides may then be drawn

(Acts 17:11; Rom. 16:17; Prov. 19:27; I John 4:1). Greg Price's "Testimony

Against The Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism" (appendix A), is a case in

point. Here Price compares the differences between the Anabaptists'

heresies and the doctrines held by the early Reformers and covenanted

Presbyterians (i.e. the paleopresbyterians) of the second Reformation.

Without even mentioning Wilson, but by simply dealing with the issues

and historical record, Price readily demonstrates the lack of sound

scholarship exhibited by Wilson in his claims that we are Anabaptistic.

Furthermore, in an ironic (yet providential) twist, the reader familiar with

the public testimony of Doug Wilson and _Credenda/Agenda_ will observe

that they actually adopt some Anabaptistic distinctives themselves.

1. Introduce uninspired man-made hymns into worship;

2. Oppose the establishment of the one true Reformed religion (thereby

promoting theological and religious egalitarianism/pluralism and that cut-

throat of all true religion: anti-Scriptural tolerationism);

3. Deny the *specifics* of covenant obligations (though the Anabaptists go

much further in this than those at _Credenda/Agenda_, denying

covenanting outright);

4. Adopt forms of civil antinomianism (as Doug Wilson does regarding the

pornography question and negative civil sanctions in "Cyberporn: A Case

Study," _Credenda/Agenda_, vol. 7, no. 5, p. 11. See my appendix B,

"Pornography, the Anabaptists and Doug Wilson's Civil Antinomianism," for

a more detailed look at this error and its relationship to Anabaptist views).

Price's appendix on the Anabaptists is a fascinating study which further

reveals how far the modern "Reformed" community has fallen into some of

the heresies held by those once considered to be among the greatest

enemies of truth -- and the Reformation in general (i.e. the Anabaptists).

Remember that because of

"the covert nature of the Anabaptists' methodology... Knox regard(ed) the

Anabaptists as more dangerous than Papists... The 'horrible and absurd'

opinions of the Anabaptists are 'rotten heresies' and 'damnable errors.' The

adherents to such teachings are 'blasphemers' and vile slaves of proud

Lucifer.' In the _First Books of Discipline_, the Anabaptists are classed

among the 'enemies to the Christian religion.' The _Confession of the

English Congregation at Geneva_ speaks of the Anabaptists as 'limbs of

Antichrist'" (Kevin Reed's Introduction to John Knox, _A Warning Against

the Anabaptists_, reprinted 1984, pp. 13,16).

It may be obvious that a number of our modern day "Reformers" lay

comfortably in the bed of the Romish whore (as to specific doctrinal

aberrations and idolatrous worship practices), but it should never be

forgotten (as evidenced by Price's appendix A and my appendix B

"Pornography, the Anabaptists and Doug Wilson's Civil Antinomianism")

that many have also fallen into the deep pit of Anabaptist apostasy.

In my responses to Wilson (and _Credenda Agenda_), I have chosen, to a

great extent, to let our Protestant forefathers speak for themselves. They

are more than able to convincingly make the case for classical

Protestantism and the attainments of the second Reformation, thereby

displaying for us the "old paths" (Jer. 6:16) and "narrow way" (Matt. 7:14).

Of course, the path of the visible church can be profitably traced back to

the ancients (with the use of the Old Testament); but our present battle

focuses primarily on the church after she had "come of age," shedding the

ceremonies of her youth, stepping out of the shadows of the old

administration (of the covenant of grace), and into the glorious light and

freedom brought by the work of our Lord Jesus Christ (Heb. 10:1-18).

Notwithstanding our Reformation focus, I do, however, sometimes note the

post-apostolic and pre-Reformation fathers and counsels, when their

testimony is in accord with Scripture.

My point here is that the use of many (and sometimes lengthy) quotations

is by design, for it is these very Reformation quotations which clearly

demonstrate the point at issue. As Samuel Davies once wrote, "The

venerable dead are waiting in my library to entertain me and relieve me

from the nonsense of surviving mortals." These citations not only vindicate,

exonerate, exculpate, absolve, and acquit those walking in the "old paths"

(from the charges of those seeking to hinder them by burying Reformation

attainments), but clearly illustrate who is really following in the "footsteps

of the flock" (Song 1:8) -- or the paths of the best (or classical) Reformers

in their faithfulness to the Word of God (i.e. the paleopresbyterians) -- and

who is perpetrating and perpetuating the defection (i.e. the

neopresbyterians). The force of the arguments cited from the old

Reformers alone, even without my additional comments, is enough to crush

all the scorpions on the path -- and Greg Price's "Testimony Against the

Unfounded Charges of Anabaptism," in appendix A (replete with the

mature and faithful witness of the Reformers) completes the mopping up

operation (sweeping aside all the splinters left-over from the previously

removed rotten wood, as well as the remains of numerous dead scorpions).

After reading through to the end of our complete response, future

travellers engaging the narrow path should have a much easier time of

negotiating the treacherous portions of terrain that are sometimes

encountered in the dark night of apostasy, backsliding and declension.

Furthermore, unless additional stumbling blocks are cast in the way (by

Wilson, _Credenda Agenda_ or others), future specific responses should be

unnecessary.

Also, please note that at the *end of my fifth response* to Doug Wilson, in

the "P.P.S." section, I have answered five questions which Wilson has

previously asked. Four of these questions were initially directed to Greg

Price, were later repeated in *Wilson's second letter to me*, and again turn

up in Wilson's review of Frame's book noted below. All these questions

address problems Mr. Wilson seems to be having with the regulative

principle of worship as articulated by the bulk of Reformation divines.

That he continues to repeat them indicates to me that he considers these

questions serious challenges to historic Reformed worship principles. Here,

in conjunction with Wilson's review of Frame's _Worship in Spirit and

Truth_ (cf. _Credenda Agenda_, volume 8, number 5, pp. 34-35; in which

Wilson denigrates the classical Protestant position on worship by terming

it the position of the "strict regulativists"), we again see that our brother

has strayed from the narrow path. We also observe, once again, how

conclusively his objections and concerns have already been met by the

skilled teachers of old. Moreover, it is at this important juncture in the

Reformation road that Wilson seems surprisingly unaware that he would

have to include many of the Reformers, their Confessions, their faithful

acts of government, etc., under his arbitrarily chosen category of "strict

regulativism." For example: the Dutch Reformers, their older national

synods (cf. "The Organ in the Worship Service and the Singing of Hymns,"

in the forthcoming book _The Wonders of the Most High_ by Abraham Van

de Velde, pp. 125-126 -- Lord willing we will be providing this book free

of charge on our web page in the near future), "Calvin, Knox, Rutherfurd,

Gillespie, Henderson, Baillie, the Westminster Assembly, the entire church

of Scotland at the time of that Assembly, and John Owen, to name only a

few" (as Larry Birger points out in his shorter letter to the editor contained

in section ten below) would all neatly fit under Wilson's Reformation-

denying "strict regulativist" misrepresentation. Is this the classical

Protestantism which Wilson so loves to promote in the pages of

_Credenda/Agenda_? Or should this denial of biblical attainments and

faithfulness be a warning sign to those who desire to worship God as He

commands? Birger again comments, "readers should note that Doug Wilson

is not a ‘classical Protestant’ in his doctrine of worship. Indeed, he has set

himself squarely against (the) classical (Protestant view of worship--RB)."

To be a "strict regulativist" in the sense in which Wilson applies this term

in his review is in reality to be just a "regulativist" -- or one who seeks to

worship God according to His commands. By adding "strict" to "regulativist"

Wilson seeks to subtly carve out a niche for those who want to pay lip

service to the regulative principle, while denying its *particular*

requirements. This attempt to obscure the original meaning of the

regulative principle (of which the biblical interpretation has been clearly

hammered out *in great detail* in the writings of the Reformers) may

mislead the ignorant and scandalous, but it will in no way deceive those

familiar with the great Reformation battles already fought over these same

worship controversies -- controversies, I might add, in which much

martyrs' blood was shed for the same principles and practices I am

defending here). Those with eyes to see will recognize at once that, in

actuality, Wilson's review of Frame was nothing more than a subtle

attempt to deny our blood bought Reformation heritage, as it has been

handed down to us in the regulative principle of worship. Wilson's attempt

at hijacking the high ground by employing literary and historical

revisionism ultimately exposes him as an anti-regulativist. Wilson is closer

to Rome than the Reformation at this point and his practice proves it!

When it comes to the worship question he continues to ignore, in classic

neopresbyterian style, the biblical attainments of our paleopresbyterian

progenitors (and thus falls into bed with the Romish whore at points). My

proof for these claims (which may startle those unfamiliar with

Reformation history) is found in *my fifth response to Wilson* (section 7 in

the table of contents below). In this section I cover a portion of the general

history and teaching of the Reformation relating to the regulative principle

-- with particular focus on the Protestants' opinion relative to the "badge

of Popery" (i.e. organ use in public worship). This section of my fifth

response (tying Reformed ideas about close communion to the worship

question) also includes a demonstration of why the old Reformers (and

Calvin specifically) would have excommunicated John Frame for writing

(and publicly distributing) his book _Worship in Spirit and Truth_. Thus,

this section provides proof which vindicates my comments on the Knox

Ring email discussion group which the brothers at _Credenda/Agenda_

originally attacked. It also shows why Wilson would have come under the

same negative ecclesiastical sanctions (given his present positions and

practice) as Frame, had he lived in the days of the first or second

Reformations.

By the way, Wilson (in the book review noted above) commends Frame's

_Worship in Spirit and Truth_ as "careful and irenic" and "useful... for the

suggested critique of strict regulativists." Now, I have asked myself, why

would Wilson, if he is a classical Protestant (as he is wont to insist),

recommend Frame's idolatry promoting, innovation filled, anti-Protestant

book on worship, as a critique of the very classical Protestants he says he

upholds? In my opinion the answer is simple: Wilson is still an antinomian

when it comes to worship. The mystical conclusion (Wilson's protest that

"this is no appeal to mysticism" notwithstanding) found in the second last

paragraph of his review of Frame's book gives conclusive evidence that

this is the case. Here Wilson seems to have an empty bottle which he calls

the regulative principle, but he has yet to fill it with anything beyond a

statement noting that Jesus, as a person, is our regulative principle. How

could we agree or disagree with these words? Such statements leave us

where Wilson's review begins, with an "empty bottle" labelled subjective,

non-specific, musings on worship. Such writing is so ambiguous that it tells

us *nothing specific* about how we are to glorify God in our public

worship. Romanists, Arminians, Charismatics and a host of others, who all

violate the regulative principle (i.e. the second commandment) in their

public worship, could all agree with Wilson's empty platitudes (this is

worse than neopresbyterianism, it is the empty-headed nonsense of

modern "evangelicalism"). The Reformers wrote huge treatises on the

worship question, and the bulk of them (and their confessions) adopted

what Wilson calls the "strict regulativist" position. If Wilson wants to retain

any credibility at all on this topic he had best *specifically* declare his

position. If he denies the classical Protestant position on the regulative

principle (as Steve Schlissel does, whom Wilson approbates in his review of

Frame), then let him tell us *specifically* what he is going to put in its

place. And, let him show that he has researched the Reformers' position by

interacting with their **best** arguments for the regulative principle --

something woefully lacking in Steve Schlissel's modern assaults upon

Reformed worship and Presbyterian government.

We who uphold the Reformation doctrine of the regulative principle have

*specifically* set forth our *positive position* concerning public worship in

**numerous** cassette lectures and sermons, new books, republished

books, newsletters, videos, tracts, web pages, etc. -- it is our critics (Wilson,

Schlissel, etc.) turn to give us something *specific* as to their **positive

position** on the second commandment and the public worship of God. Let

them tell us *specifically*, to the best of their ability (after having studied

the relevant data), what the second commandment allows and what it

forbids. We have done that for them (and they have taken their shots at

our work); let them now do it for us and we will be happy to critique their

work (and let the readers judge who has done their homework on this

critical issue). And if this work ever gets done by the modern detractors of

Reformation worship, the readers should pay careful attention to all the

footnotes cited (to compare them with the footnotes in our critiques), so as

to determine who it is that is favorably citing the Westminster Divines, the

Reformation Dutch Synods, Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, Gillespie, Owen, and

even most of the early Independents. It should then be clear who the real

classical Protestants are, and who has set up tent in some other camp. I

also ask the reader to consider the following questions: Were the

Calvinistic Reformers and their Confessions all wrong in their

interpretation of Scripture concerning worship? Were the Lutherans,

Prelates and Romanists right? In providing the *specifics* of their position

on worship will our modern reformers prove to the onlooking Christian

community that they follow in the footsteps of the original Reformers? Or,

will they show that they follow in the footsteps of those who opposed the

Reformation? Will they adopt the classical Protestant position on worship

or will they reject it -- and be honest enough to say so publicly?

The regulative principle of worship is a two way street. Agree with it (and

continue to apply it faithfully to each specific act of worship, as your

understanding increases) and you are on the road to Westminster and the

Covenanted Reformation; disagree with it and (at the most basic level) you

are on the road to Rome. There is no neutrality; you either worship God

according to His appointment (Exod. 20:4-6), or you will find some human

substitute. "Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the

commandments of men" (Mark 7:7). Regarding this observation as to the

degree of faithfulness one maintains to the regulative principle, R.L.

Dabney makes the same point in his book review of Girardeau's

_Instrumental Music in the Worship of the Church_. First, Dabney warns

that those who reject the classical Protestant position on the regulative

principle also reject "that vital truth which no Presbyterian can discard

without a square desertion of our principles." A second shot is fired when

he compounds his warning in this cautionary beacon, proclaiming that

those who do not adhere to what Wilson falsely calls "strict regulativism"

have -- in Dabney's own words -- "**set out at once for Rome**."

Though this introduction and some of my replies to Wilson contain strong

language, I hope it is clear that this project is presented with much prayer

and with a sincere desire to glorify God, unify the church, and win many

brothers back to the precious truths fought and died for during both

Reformations. To do this, the neopresbyterian nonsense that is being

passed off today as "Classical Protestantism" -- especially by those at

_Credenda/Agenda_ (and don't get me wrong, _Credenda/Agenda_ does

some very good work also) -- must be clearly exposed. In an attempt to

prepare those not accustomed to the heat of the battle (or familiar with the

many violently aggressive terms used by defenders of the faith, past and

present [Mark 8:33; Matt. 23:16; Matt. 3:7; and read Knox or Calvin]), I

caution you that some of what follows will periodically seem harsh. But

remember, the cultural effeminacy which presently pervades the churches

of the harlot (Rev. 17:5) is not our standard; the Word of God is!

Though the matter of _Credenda/Agenda's_ original slander is interspersed

throughout these pages, *please devote your attention to the larger issues

which arose*. I am convinced that a careful study of Scripture and history

will reveal that Doug Wilson and _Credenda/Agenda_ do not faithfully set

forth the whole counsel of God as it was articulated in the teaching of the

best Reformers -- and, as touched on already, in a number of cases they

actually oppose the biblical aspects of this teaching! The most prominent

example of Wilson's opposition to the Reformation (as you will see in our

letters) is his insistence that the position which we have adopted (being

the position of the Covenanted Presbyterians of the seventeenth century,

which included many of the Westminster Divines) is what he designates as

the Anabaptist position. Christ's church is under attack on many fronts

today, but some of the most dangerous assaults are coming from those who

lay claim to titles like "Reformed" and "Classical Protestant" -- their cries

being all the more plausible, because more truth is mixed with their error.

Yet, these same "Classical Protestant" groups and individuals not only

reject the hard teachings of the Reformation, but they also reject those who

are sent to once again bring them to light. I pray that this little book will

help to make a clear distinction (in the minds of Christians) between the

truths of Scriptural Reformation and the lies of our modern day pseudo-

Reformers and fashionable sub-Calvinists (for the sake of the Truth

[Christ], Doug Wilson and the brothers at _Credenda/Agenda_ included). It

is also my prayer that it may assist those laboring under similar false

conceptions about Scripture and the Reformation to disentangle themselves

from false teachers and pretended authorities (in both the church and the

state).

Though this started out as my attempt to reconcile with those who had

publicly attacked me (without provocation), it turned out to be much more.

**Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, please keep in mind that the

most important information contained here is found in those sections (my

second and fifth letters and Greg Price's work on the Anabaptists) dealing

with the broader questions related to church, state, worship, separation,

attainments, etc.** Don't be distracted by the side issues, personalities

involved, or the frailty of this writer; ***please focus on the issues***. Let

it also be known (because it is not always apparent in the heat of a battle

like this) that we (the Covenanters in Edmonton, Prince George, Red Deer,

the United States and elsewhere) mourn and grieve over the backslidden

state (especially at the constitutional level) of the visible church. We love

the Lord's covenanted Zion and pray for the day when she shall be

"terrible as an army with banners" (Song 6:10), unified in the truth (Zech.

14:9), with the nations (as nations) flowing into her (Isa. 2:2).

Though Gillespie applied the following words to the malignants (made up

primarily of professing Christians who opposed the covenants) of his day, I

think that these words continue to apply just as well to those antichristian

ideas (scorpions) which we are now seeking to oppose and vanquish in our

day. Gillespie, in his dying testimony against the forces of malignancy

(Sept. 8, 1648), wrote,

"I dare not be silent, nor conceal my thoughts of any sinful and dangerous

course in the public proceedings... I cannot but discharge my conscience in

giving a testimony against all such compliance (with the malignants--RB)...

Yea, all that hear of it (the covenant breaking compliance--RB) might justly

stand amazed at us, and look on us as a people infatuated, **that can take

in our bosom the fiery serpents that have stung us so sore**" ("To the Right

Reverend the Commission of the General Assembly" in Gillespie's _Works_

volume 2, p. 1)

This book is dedicated to assisting those with ears to hear, that we might

not be stung again and again by the same old poison of malignancy (only

now dressed in the modern and subtly attractive [to the flesh] attire of the

fashionable sub-Calvinists and the ever so "tolerant" [of sin] pluralistic

neopresbyterians).

The constitutional daughters of the harlot always claim " I have peace

offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows" (Prov. 7:14). Be not

taken in by her (Prov. 7:18), for "With her much fair speech she caused

him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him" (Prov. 7:21). We

live in times comparable to Isaiah's, and we should prepare to heed his

vision "concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham,

Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah" (Isa. 1:1).

"Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have

nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

The ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master's crib: but Israel doth

not know, my people doth not consider. Ah sinful nation, a people laden

with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have

forsaken the LORD, they have provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger,

they are gone away backward. Why should ye be stricken any more? ye

will revolt more and more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart

faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in

it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been

closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment. Your country is

desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in

your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. And the

daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of

cucumbers, as a besieged city. Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a

very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have

been like unto Gomorrah" (Isa. 1:2-9).

One would have to be almost totally spiritually blind not to recognize that

we have nationally "provoked the Holy One of Israel unto anger." The

result is that our cities are burned with fire, our land is devoured by

strangers (covenant breakers, antichristian and pagan) and that "the

daughter of Zion is left as a cottage in a vineyard, as a lodge in a garden of

cucumbers, as a besieged city." But the Lord has left us a remnant for "the

work of the restoring of the ruined temple of the Covenanted Reformation,

and thereby the effecting of a third Reformation" (James Kerr, as cited in

_Sermons Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ by the

Covenanted Ministers of Scotland, p. 47) and, by His grace, as long as we

have breath to speak and hands to write, we will be found proclaiming

from rooftops: THE COVENANTS SHALL BE OUR REVIVING! For we have a

sure promise from the "LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God,

that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his

commandments" (Neh. 1:5),

"For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry

ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine

offspring: And they shall spring up as among the grass, as willows by the

water courses. One shall say, I am the LORD's; and another shall call

himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand

unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel" (Isa. 44:3-5).

May our Lord bless the reading of these debates to His glory, the faithful

renewing of His covenants (National and Solemn League), and to a return

to the biblical attainments of the covenanted Reformation.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant,

Reg Barrow

May 5, 1997

1. REG BARROW'S LETTER TO KNOX RING
REGARDING JOHN FRAME'S NEW BOOK
ON WORSHIP

Distributed By:

JOHN OWEN BUTLER

Pastor-Teacher

Beal Heights PCA

Lawton, Oklahoma

United States of America

Moderator, The Knox Ring

INTERNET: jbutler@sirinet.net

WWW: http://www.sirinet.net/~jbutler/index.htm

================== INDEX ===================

Items posted in KR960704 are as follows:

Item #1 From: swrb@swrb.com (Reg Barrow)

Subject: Worship in Spirit and Truth

Paul R. Ipema writes:

(snip)

>

>I am especially interested to see any comments relating to Frame's

assessment

>of the traditional Puritan view of the regulative principle as "minimalist."

> James Jordan has described this view as "sectarian." [See his <Liturgical

>Nestorianism and the Regulative Principle

>published by Transfiguration Press, 1994].

>Although I cannot agree with or endorse all of what Professor

>Frame has written, I find Professor Frame's discussion to be useful in

>sorting through this issue as a pastor who wishes to take seriously the

>regulative principle of worship and apply it consistently in our worship.

Reg Barrow replies:

I've recently written a book review of Kevin Reed's _Canterbury Tales_

which dealt primarily with James Jordan and his heretical views

concerning worship. It is called "A Warning Against the False and

Dangerous Views of James Jordan Concerning Worship." From the quotes

that I have seen here and elsewhere, taken from Frame's new book, I

would say that much of my warning against Jordan would apply equally

well to Frame. This book review may be helpful and is posted on Still

Waters Revival Books (SWRB) web page at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BlastJJ.htm

I have also asked an author that I know (who has already read Frame's

entire book) to produce a review which will warn people of the subtle and

dangerous views that Frame is publicly putting forth.

Kevin Reed's _Canterbury Tales_, is also available (FREE of charge) on

SWRB's web page at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Canterbu.htm

Furthermore, Carlos Eire's book _War Against the Idols: The Reformation of

Worship from Erasmus to Calvin_ is an indispensable aid in researching

this topic - especially since Eire does not have an axe to grind concerning

this issue. More information on Eire's scholarly work (published by

Cambridge University Press) is at:

http://www.swrb.com/newbooks/newbe.htm

I think that Eire's _War Against the Idols_ proves beyond a shadow of a

doubt that Calvin would have excommunicated both Frame and Jordan

without a second thought - given the idolatrous nature of their beliefs

regarding public worship.

I draw the same *general* conclusion at the end of my article "PSALM

SINGING IN SCRIPTURE & HISTORY" (in the section "Psalmody, Separation,

and the Lord's Supper). This newsletter can be viewed at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/crtpssing.htm

A FREE copy of Calvin's _Necessity of Reforming the Church_, which is most

germane to this subject is also located at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/NRC_ch00.htm

I would also note that those who introduce innovations into the public

worship of God (contrary to the second commandment) are the real

sectarians; for they destroy the unity of the body of Christ. This topic is

covered in its relation to exclusive Psalmody (in a book which I

republished) in two articles titled "The Catholicity of the Psalter" - found in

_The Psalms in Worship_ edited by John McNaugher (at:

http://www.swrb.com/catalog/m.htm )

Moreover, the following quote by Jeremiah Burroughs should always be

kept in mind when dealing with the subject of worship:

"The nearer a false worship approaches to a true one, the more dangerous

it is. Israel came nearer to the true worship of God than the heathens: now

the prophet saith not, Though the heathens be idolators, yet let not Judah

be so too; but, 'Though Israel play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend.'

There was more danger that Judah should be drawn aside by Israel, than

that they should be drawn aside by any of the heathen. And so there is

more danger that we, at this day, should be drawn aside by those that join

with us in many things that are right, than by papists, who are hateful to

us, and whose ways we see to be abominable. There is not so much danger,

especially for those that profess godliness, of being drawn aside by those

who grossly violate the laws of God, as by brethren that join with us in

many things that are right, and come very near to the true worship of

God... We must not approach places calculated to draw us into sin,

especially to false worship... It is dangerous to indulge curiosity in visiting

places of idolatry..."

("Comments on Hosea 4:15 by Jeremiah Burroughs [1599-1646]" cited in

_The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness_ magazine [vol. 1, #19,

Sept. 10/93, pp. 416-417], Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Publishing,

write: P.O. Box 131, Pottstown, PA 19464 USA for a free sample issue).

FOR FURTHER STUDY:

_Biblical Worship_ by Kevin Reed

_Concerning Close Communion_ by W.J. McKnight

_Shunning the Unlawful Rights of the Ungodly_ by John Calvin

_Reformation Worship and Separation from Idolatry_ by Reg Barrow

_Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Church_ by J.L.

Girardeau

_The Songs of Zion: A Contemporary Case for Exclusive Psalmody_ by M.

Bushell

_Foundation for Reformation: The Regulative Principle of Worship_ by Greg

Price

_Making Shipwreck of the Faith: Evangelicals and Catholics Together_ by K.

Reed

_The Badge of Popery: Musical Instruments in Public Worship_ by R.J.

George

_Paleopresbyterianism Versus Neopresbyterianism_ by Michael Wagner

_A Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies_ by George Gillespie

_Westminster Confession of Faith_ by the Westminster Divines

_Selected Writings of John Knox_ by John Knox

_Close Communion_ by R.J. George

Sincerely, Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS

ALL FREE BOOKS at: http://www.swrb.com/ - follow FREE

BOOKS link

swrb@swrb.com 4710-37A Ave. Edmonton AB Canada T6L 3T5

Voice: +1 780 450 3730 Fax (orders only): +1 780 468 1096

(Discount Christian resources by mail-order. ASK for a FREE catalogue!)

END KNOX RING (URL's in "Item #1" above have been updated from original

posting)

2. _CREDENDA AGENDA'S_ ("SAUL'S")
ATTACK IN THE "CAVE OF ADULLAM"

Cave of Adullam

Mutterings on the Regnant Follies

Rennis Dodman (i.e. _Credenda Agenda's_ editorial staff-- RB)

Great Experiments in Telepathy

Reg Barrow is the president of Still Waters Revival Books. He hasn't read

John Frame's new book on worship, but he thinks it is heresy anyway. In a

public on-line discussion of the book he calls it "subtle and dangerous." He

finds Frame's view that we are allowed to sing hymns, whether new and

old, a little hotter than he can handle. And Frame is acting "contrary to the

second commandment," and is a "real sectarian." And to top off his

musings, Barrow claims that Calvin would have excommunicated Frame

"without a second thought." And all this insight without reading the book!

We have not read all Barrow's comments on Frame, and that which we did

read was not read very carefully--but that should present no barrier to

the rigorous exchange of ideas!

(Excerpted from _Credenda Agenda_ magazine, volume 8, number 4)

3. REG BARROW'S FIRST LETTER
(CHARGES AGAINST DOUG WILSON)

Doug:

(This is not a letter to the editor for public use at this time).

I am writing in accordance with Christ's instruction in Mt. 18:15 that we

should seek to settle offences, if possible, in private before going public.

I had hoped you would have done the same with me before printing

"Telepathy." In fact, when I was first told (by one of SWRB's customers)

about what you had allowed, as editor of _Credenda/Agenda_, to be

printed in this section, I refused to believe him until I had checked your

web page for myself. You not only did not contact me then, but in the

intervening time you have not contacted me in order to address this

matter (though the teaching elder at the church I attend has repeatedly

reminded you of this offence via email). Sadly, this is not only an offence

that separates us as brothers in Christ (viz., your slanderous satire of my

name concerning my the defence of the truth on Knox Ring); we are also

separated by your apparent lack of love (at any time before the printing of

the article in _Credenda_ or since) to privately address your concerns to

me. Notwithstanding, I would much rather do everything in my power to

see this situation resolved in a manner that is pleasing to God (before this

becomes a larger public scandal).

Doug, I have always considered you and those that work with you as

friends. I have carried some of your books, linked you to my web page,

sent copies of your magazine (I get 100 copies of each) all around the

world with our orders (covering the extra postage myself), published your

magazine address in my catalogue in a number of locations (free of charge

and without your solicitation – reaching over 50,000 people), etc. I have

also spoken with you (and some of your associates) on the phone and have

always found the conversation cordial and interesting. I have long prayed

for your work and still continue to do so (even since you slandered me in

your "Telepathy" article). I would have hoped that such previous good will

between us would have warranted (at least) a personal contact before you

proceeded with attacking me publicly. To say the least I am grieved on a

number of counts. Furthermore, I can easily prove that what you said was

not true, and you certainly can't prove the contrary (i.e. that I had not read

the Frame book before speaking against it). Yet, in spite of all of our

previously unsuccessful (private) attempts to resolve this matter with you

(through Greg Price), I still think that I should make this one last private

attempt at remedying this situation. I guess I still hope that all my prayers

(of the past five or six years) for you and those at Credenda/Agenda will

still be answered (especially in regard to your coming up to the

attainments of the covenanted Reformation). Hopefully this information

will give you a little bit of an idea as to why I am reluctant to expose your

sin to our large public audience – and as to why I have not done so

already (though it would have been perfectly legitimate to do so).

Doug, I plead with you to acknowledge your public violation of the ninth

commandment in this case. You have allowed that which was not true

(about me) to be published in your "Cave of Adullam" column

(_Credenda/Agenda_, Vol. 8, No. 4) – under the pseudonym of "Rennis

Dodman" (thus, this letter also applies to whoever actually wrote the

"Telepathy" piece, though you have not been willing to give us this name).

I also ask, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you repent of this

public scandal by taking all appropriate steps to indicate your repentance.

If you were to sincerely repent, and print a full retraction in the "Cave of

Adullam," then I believe that you would have not only made things right

in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of man (Rom. 12:17). This

would also allow me to point people to your retraction, as they bring the

matter up, and quell any ensuing scandal.

I pray that the Lord will grant you both the humility and courage to do

what is equitable in this matter.

Please respond at your earliest possible convenience.

Sincerely,

Reg Barrow, President, STILL WATERS REVIVAL BOOKS

4. *REG BARROW'S SECOND LETTER
(CHARGES, WITH A WITNESS, AGAINST
AND REPLY TO DOUG WILSON)

Monday, January 20, 1997

Doug:

This is not a letter to the editor, but please consider it as fulfilling the

second step of recovering a wayward brother, in accord with Matt. 18:16.

My witness is Larry Birger, Jr. Should you fail to repent after this letter, I

will be taking this matter to the church (as Matt. 18:17 commands). Public

testimonies will follow.

Also, I am well aware that I could have immediately rebuked you publicly

for your sin of lying about me in _Credenda/Agenda_ "Cave of Adullam"

column (_Credenda/Agenda_, Vol. 8, No. 4). But to be absolutely above

reproach, and for the sake of the Gospel, I wanted to go as many extra

miles as I could (though *now* my tone will be much more straight

forward) concerning the public scandal necessitated by what you have

published.

I must also say, that the side issues that we have been drawn into as a

result of your slander (of myself) have certainly caused me to reflect on

the words of the Reformed Presbytery,

"In this age of boasted charity, but really ‘detestable neutrality and

indifferency,’ it is an irksome and painful task, but a duty, thus to bear

testimony against churches, in which are to be found, no doubt, many

precious sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. But personal piety

never was, nor possibly can be, the condition of fellowship in the visible

church. To think so, and say so, is one of the most popular delusions of the

present day. It puts the supposed pious man, speaking his experience, in

the place of God, speaking his sovereign will in the Bible. This is the height

of impiety" (_Act, Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our

Covenanted Reformation_, [1876 edition] SWRB reprint 1995, p. 175).

This whole exercise has certainly been a most "irksome and painful task,"

but one that I hope will be profitable to you (and to others that may see

these exchanges in the future).

Furthermore, I would also like to state at the outset of this response that

my correspondence has been produced in the prayerful hope (and with the

Christian love that does not suffer sin upon a neighbor, Lev. 19:17) that

you would be granted repentance in regard to your initial lies about me;

and now, that you would also be granted repentance in regard to the

various anti-Reformation, anti-Covenanter and, of course, anti-Scriptural

errors that you espouse (that have been made manifest by your previous

responses to our attempts at reconciliation). I also hope that you noticed

the phrase "many precious sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty" in

the citation by the Reformed Presbytery above. It will be useful, as you

read my response, to keep the distinction between an individual (and his

status before the Lord) and the visible church (constitutionally considered)

in the forefront of your mind. Missing, obscuring, or forgetting this

distinction will definitely diminish the usefulness of what I have written,

likely causing the issues to be clouded by emotive responses, unthinking

caricature and the construction of not a few straw men. My hope, in

sending you this second private admonishment (though it would have been

perfectly legitimate to have publicly rebuked you long ago), is that you

will publicly repent before I am forced to take more drastic measures to

clear my name, the name of Still Waters Revival Books and the biblical

truths set forth by the covenanting Reformers of both Reformations (with

regards to the false aspersions which you have cast upon us).

>December 19, 1996

>

>Dear Reg and Pastor Greg,

>

>I want to take the liberty of speaking somewhat plainly. This is not

because

>I am angry or provoked, and certainly not because we despise your

persons or

>the valuable work you have done over the years for the cause of Christ.

Our

>love for you may be difficult for you to see, but rest assured that we want

>to treat you lawfully with a whole heart (ninth commandment included).

In

>his letter, Reg reminded me of the support you have given our ministry in

>the past (for which we thank you again), and would only want to remind

you

>that the support and reinforcement was mutual. We promoted and helped

your

>ministry as well, and it saddens us to see you throwing it all down (what

>appears to me) an anabaptist drain.

That you continue to throw out the word Anabaptist is a clear indication

that you have no understanding of the second Reformation (on the points

in question) or the position that we now occupy. Were Rutherford and the

other "minority" ministers, who separated themselves (to avoid schism),

from the apostatizing Resolutioners, Anabaptists -- because they valiantly

championed separation from corrupted and corrupting churches? Was

James Renwick, the only minister to uphold faithfully the covenanted

attainments of the Church of Scotland (when he was martyred near the

close of the "killing times") an Anabaptist -- because he valiantly

championed separation from corrupted and corrupting churches? Before

the second Reformation was Calvin an Anabaptist when he pushed for

excommunication (and civil sanctions) against those who would not

covenant under the _Confession of Faith of Geneva_? What about Knox?

Athanasuis? Paul (2 Thes. 3:6)? the men of Judah (Hosea 4:15-19),

Jeremiah (Jer. 15:15-20), etc.? Hundreds of other examples can be cited. If

these men were Anabaptists, then we are too -- for we (and not you) are

occupying the same ground they did regarding separation. But to say that

these men were Anabaptists is to deny Scripture and the historic Christian

testimony (particularly the first and second Reformations), and this is

exactly what you do every time you call us Anabaptists.

This type of slander (i.e. calling Covenanters Anabaptists) was a common

tactic used by malignants (i.e. covenant opposers) in the days of the Second

Reformation, as I will show in the future if our problems become more

public. Furthermore, many of the positions that you have publicly

espoused (regarding Christian liberty, the church, civil government,

subscription to confessions, worship, open communion, etc.) are in reality

much closer to the Anabaptist positions than they are to the position of the

best Reformers (as will also be made known publicly in the future, if

necessary).

>The culmination of your doctrinal

>"progress" will not be at all what you envision now. My distinct perception

>is that, unless you are careful, all your work for reformation is going to

>disappear in a tiny little perfectionistic puff of smoke.

How did you arrive at this "distinct perception"? You know nothing of the

great things that God is now doing from our base here in Edmonton -- or

what his plans for us are (not to mention that the matter of size is

irrelevant; truth is what we seek). Nevertheless, we have, by the grace of

God, distributed 115,000 catalogues in the last 16 months (and are aiming

at distributing between 200,000 and 500,000 catalogues in 1997),

published over 500 books in the last 5 years (or so), distributed over 1

million tracts and newsletters (many of them free of charge), planted three

covenanted churches (with upwards of 100 new possible plants marked on

the computer -- one as far away as Australia) and at the present rate we

are getting well over 500,000 hits a year on our web page (where we offer

over 100 free Reformation books and other articles). Many other projects

are in the works, but the point is we do not "despise the day of small

things" -- for in our prayers we are asking for much more (Eph. 3:20) --

viz. the re-establishment of covenanted Presbyterian nations and national,

faithful, covenanted Presbyterian churches worldwide.

I guess when we see God honoring our "tiny little perfectionistic puff" with

even the limited success noted above, we are exceedingly thankful; and the

increased attacks (generally, not necessarily referring to you) from the

wicked one just seem to spur us on.

J.A. Alexander's comment on Isaiah 6:13 also provides an appropriate

picture of our contemporary situation concerning the spiritual vitality of

the church,

"However frequently the people may seem to be destroyed, there shall still

be a surviving remnant, and however frequently that very remnant may

appear to perish, there shall still be a remnant of the remnant left, and this

indestructible residuum shall be the holy seed, the true church."

That we may be relatively small *now* is no deterrent (and it never has

been to those who love Christ) to continue to follow hard upon "the whole

counsel of God;" for we are assured that the faith that we publish will one

day cover the whole earth (Isa. 2:2-5; Ezek. 47:1-12; Ps. 72; Matt. 13:31-

33). Furthermore, seeing that the Dragon presently gives his power unto

the beast and that the testimony of the two witnesses (who prophesy

during the great apostasy, Rev. 11:3) is almost silenced, only further

attests to the truth of the classical Protestant eschatology of Historicism --

contrary to the Jesuit planted views of Futurism and Preterism (see our

free article, "Apocalyptic Interpretation," on the origins of the six major

eschatological systems, at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/ApocInt.htm or

write for a free copy of this tract).

By the way, if you take the reckoning of some of the old Historicists, who

place the beginning of the millennium sometime in the next hundred years

or so, who knows, this revival of the covenanted Reformation -- which has

begun to be published from Edmonton (with hundreds of the classics from

the best Presbyterian and Reformed authors being placed back in print for

the first time in centuries) -- could be the precursor to preparing the

nations for that blessed period which is to come (cf. Thomas Houston's

_Unity and Uniformity in the Church_, [1881] SWRB reprint 1996 and

Appendix D in _The Ordinance of Covenanting_ by John Cunningham

[1843], SWRB reprint 1996). I am no date setter, but it is interesting to

think (and pray) about, for what took place during the days of the writing

and international subscriptions to the Solemn League and Covenant has

been cited before as a foretaste of the millennial glory to come. The

Reformed Presbytery writes,

"These modern pigmies are too far dwarfed in intellectual stature to

measure the altitude, of our glorious Covenanted Reformation -- a

Reformation which, imbedded in the law and the covenant of God, has

already brought civil and ecclesiastical freedom to many millions; and

which is doubtless destined to be laid in the foundation of reconstructed

society in the millennial period of the world" (_A Short Vindication of Our

Covenanted Reformation_, [1879] SWRB reprint 1996, p. 4).

James Kerr, on the Sabbath, June 20th, 1880, in a sermon preached in

Greyfriar's Churchyard, in Edinburgh, titled "A Third Reformation

Necessary: or, the Piety, Principles, and Patriotism of Scotland's Covenanted

Martyrs; With Application to the Present Times," makes the same point

concerning the monumental character of the international transactions that

transpired during the Covenanters' combat with the forces of antichrist.

While also giving us great insight into some of the most important battles

of Second Reformation warfare, Kerr proclaims, regarding the combat of

these faithful witnesses,

"They stood for the Supreme Authority of the Holy Scriptures; for the

Exclusive Headship of the Lord Jesus over the Church; for the Church's

independent spiritual jurisdiction and power; for the Divine right of

Presbytery; for the purity of worship in the Church and the Church's

freedom from all unauthorized rites and ceremonies. They stood for every

pin of the tabernacle, for every item of truth to which they had attained...

'Whose faith follow.' Let us embrace those doctrines affecting the Church's

existence, privileges and prosperity, for which the martyrs suffered, and

let us imitate their fidelity to the high attainments of a preceding period.

The great Scriptural doctrines for which they were honoured to contend

and which constituted the Church's glory, are still more or less lightly

esteemed by even many professing Christians and ecclesiastical

denominations... (A)rminianism is making rapid strides to popularity.

Dishonour is done to the royal prerogative of Christ as Zion's King by those

Churches that appeal to or base the claim of rights upon the Revolution

Settlement -- a Settlement that proceeded upon Erastian principles and left

many of the attainments for which the martyrs suffered in the oblivion to

which the Stuarts had consigned them... The doctrine of Christ's Exclusive

Headship over His own Church, and of the freedom of the Church under her

exclusive head, requires to be vindicated and testified for against all

modern departures therefrom. There is need to maintain and propagate

the doctrine of the Divine right of the Presbyterian form of Church

government, for at the present time only two of the Churches -- and these

among the smallest -- hold this doctrine in all its Scriptural completeness.

There is a need to maintain the high scriptural doctrine concerning the

modes of worship in the Church, that no rite or ceremony is to be

introduced into the forms of worship for which an express prescription,

direct or indirect, cannot be produced from God's Own Word. The additions

to the Church's worship of forms of human invention, and called for in

order to the gratification of mere religious fashion, constitute one of the

saddest signs of the present time. 'As though God has been defective,' as

Charnock writes with reference to such innovators, 'in providing for His

own honour in His institutions, and modelling His own service, but stood in

need of our directions and the *caprichios* of our brains. In this they do

not seem to climb above God, yet they set themselves on the throne of God,

and would grasp one end of His sceptre in their own hands. They do not

attempt to take the crown from God's head but discover a bold ambition to

shuffle their hairy scalps under it, and wear a part of it upon their own.'

**By the unflinching maintenance and profession of these doctrines, then,

we are to prove ourselves the legitimate descendants of Scotland's

Covenanted Martyrs.** This duty may draw down upon us reproach and

shame, but, as the doctrines are Scriptural, the shame, like that of the

martyrs, is transformed into glory. These doctrines are not now popular

nor fashionable; still they are in advance of this age and prevailing

ecclesiastical opinions, and they shall be popular and fashionable in the

Church everywhere when 'God shall help her, and that at the breaking of

the morning.' They shall have a resurrection with power, when Zion shall

be set upon the mountains, and when the glory of her King shall array her,

they shall be triumphant when the whole banner for the truth shall wave

upon the battlements of the Millennial Church of Jesus" (Cited in _Sermons

Delivered in Times of Persecution in Scotland_ [1880 ed., SWRB reprint

1996], pp. 32-35, emphases added).

Hetherington, concerning the Solemn League and Covenant (the epitome of

second Reformation attainments), also comments that "no man who is able

to understand its nature, and to feel and appreciate its spirit and its aim,

will deny it to be the wisest, the sublimest, and the most sacred document

ever framed by uninspired men" (_History of the Westminster Assembly

of Divines_, [1856] SWRB reprint 1993, p. 134).

When the churches and nations are granted repentance in (or preparing

for) the millennium they will be found "going forth by the footsteps of the

flock" (Song 1:8) and not turned "aside by the flock of thy companions" (i.e.

those that appear religious but are actually a hindrance to the work of the

building of Christ's kingdom, Song 1:7, cf. Douglas' _Strictures on Occasional

Hearing_, [1820] SWRB reprint 1996); and there is no "footstep of the

flock" more clearly distinguished in the bedrock of history (since the days

of the apostles) than the Solemn League and Covenant; followed by those

footsteps of second Reformation attainments outlined by Kerr above

(concerning the primacy of Scripture as it is applied to purity of worship,

doctrine, and government in Christ's church).

By God's most magnificent grace this Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian

testimony is now also *our* testimony (as it is applied to the present

circumstances in our day); exhibiting another aspect of truth (i.e. testimony

bearing) which has been buried among the ruins of the covenanted

Reformation by the ecclesiastical beast (cf. Steele's _Notes on the

Apocalypse_, pp. 192f., 306, etc.) as he is seen to rise up in the apostate

modern churches. Regarding specific testimony-bearing (both for the truth

and against apostasy) Howie comments, in his 1779 Preface to the original

edition of _Sermons in Times of Persecution_, on the specific content of

Covenanter preaching (as cited below). Think hard, Doug, as you read this

fine summary of the covenanted or second Reformation. See if your claims

to be Presbyterian, a "classic Protestant," and a promoter of the covenanted

Reformation resemble anything like what really took place during this

watershed period of history. If you are an honest man I think it will be

becoming more and more apparent (as you read quotes like this, and the

rest of this letter) that you are far from the biblical attainments of the

covenanted Reformation. What these saints fought and often died for is a

far cry from the trendy, fashionable sub-Calvinism which you promote. But

here are Howie's comments,

"In the following discourse, a doctrinal banner is lifted up for the divine

right of Presbytery -- that is, the doctrine, worship, discipline, and

government of the Reformed Church of Scotland, as contained in her

excellent Standards, Confession of Faith, Catechisms, etc. But how stands

the case in this with us at present? For, not to mention these

Machiavellians, court parasites, Platonic saints, or baptized heathens,

whose wit is either some lascivious hint, or some broken jest upon

Scripture, and who can profess one religion to-day and another to-morrow,

or turn every way wherever the ministerial magnet leads them; or these

gentlemen of the *Beau-monde*, who ofttimes distinguish themselves by

the name of free-thinkers, under which may be comprehended all

Atheists, all Deists, Unitarians, Pelagians, Socinians, Arminians, etc. How

many different sects are there amongst us, whose principles (if they have

any) say that the government and discipline of the Church of Christ is a

thing purely ambulatory, that may be moulded or metamorphosed into

any form or fashion that best suits their local circumstances and the

political constitution of the kingdoms of this world will admit of. For, not to

mention Episcopalians, Independents, anabaptists, Glassites, Bereans,

Methodists, and Moravians, such a loose and vague scheme of sentiment

now obtains amongst many of the Presbyterian persuasion that, under the

notion of what they call charity, moderation, and liberty of conscience,

they can admit of almost all the forementioned tribes unto their

communion upon a bare supposition of their visible saintship (a common

error in our day--RB), or what they term sincerity in the main, without

any other test of orthodoxy than what they define the fundamentals of

Christianity. Every other creed, confession, or article of faith (if compiled

by men, though founded upon and agreeable to Scripture) must be

reprobated and discarded; and all formal testimony bearers are accounted

by them precisians, bigots, men of narrow, contracted judgements, and

illiberal sentiments, 'The Word of God (say they) is our testimony.' But

what is all this? Almost every heretic that appears in the Church will tell

us the same. Indeed a better testimony than this cannot be. But then the

Word of God properly can be no man's testimony, it is God's own

testimony. It is above eighteen times, in one portion of Scripture so called

(Ps 119). 'we declare unto you the testimony of God,' says the apostle. It is

also called the testimony of Jesus, 'The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of

prophecy.' And unto every truth, particularly that called the present truth,

every one of His professing people is to give a explicit adherence, and this

is called their testimony. 'And when they shall have finished their

testimony,' and they 'overcame by the word of their testimony.' But to

tantalize or soothe up the minds of the credulous they must needs own the

thirty-three chapters of the Confession too. And who thanks them to own

that which their own hand-writing binds them unto? But as this seems

now a point of mere form, it will likely in a little [while--RB] go out of

fashion [how prophetic--RB]; for, while some are using means to be

disentangled from that obligation, others subscribe with a mental

reservation (like Arius's paper [and the John Frame’s of our day--RB]) in

their bosom; a third, to anticipate all this, must need engage with his own

explanation upon it. But hear the divine mandate, 'Son of man, shew them

the house, and all the forms, and all the ordinances thereof.' 'Hold fast the

form of sound words.'" (Cited in _Sermons Delivered in Times of

Persecution in Scotland_ [1880 ed., SWRB reprint 1996], pp. 62-63).

Is this your testimony for the covenanted Reformation, Doug? Close

communion? Divine Right Presbyterianism? "Strict regulativism" regarding

worship (as you would call it)? Separation from apostates (including

Arminians)? Strict subscriptionism (the only subscriptionism in keeping

with the third and ninth commandments)? etc. etc.

Furthermore, so far from believing our work will "disappear in a tiny little

puff of perfectionistic smoke," as is your dim prognosis, we are very

excited at the ramifications of this revival of the covenanted reformation

here, and increasingly, elsewhere. Our faithful forbears expected great

things to come of the covenanted reformation, and so do we, and thus we

cry exultingly and confidently (as good postmillennialists) with James

Guthrie (spoken as he stood upon the scaffold in anticipation of the

martyrs crown) "The Covenants, the Covenants shall yet be Scotland’s

reviving!" And, we would add, not only Scotland's reviving, but that of the

whole world!

Moreover, and especially in the light of the above (and following)

quotations and Scripture proofs, it is *not* perfectionism to insist on

constitutional adherence to Reformation attainments at a corporate level

(ecclesiastically and civilly) -- and it certainly isn't in any way akin to the

anabaptist heresy! To the contrary, it is *essential* to sanctification, both

individually and corporately, to require maintenance of the growth in

grace that God has granted thus far. As Scripture commands of individual

believers: "Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by

the same rule, let us mind the same thing" (Phil. 3:16). Does this not apply,

*a fortiori*, to the moral person ecclesiastically (and civilly also)? If not,

how can one ever obey the fifth commandment at a corporate level? How

can anyone know what they have "already attained", if they do not

understand and know the preceding history upon which to differentiate

what they consider biblical attainments from what are not biblical

attainments? God often calls His people to remember those who have been

faithful in following Christ (Heb. 11) and the Old Testament is full of

examples in which we see God directing his people to hearken back to the

attainments and defections of the past (Judg. 2:20-22; Mal. 2:8-10; Dan.

9:16; Deut. 1:35; Deut. 4, etc.), as a means of teaching them present public

and private duties and responsibilities.

Furthermore, in conjunction with this point on attainments, you seem to

have no idea about how history is a term of fellowship. At a very simple

level this principle can be illustrated in the relationship between parents

and children. Tell me, how would a child obey the fifth commandment if he

did not know who his parents were? Does this not hold true regarding an

individual's responsibility concerning civil and ecclesiastical government in

their capacity as moral persons? -- though as Rutherford points out in

_Lex, Rex_ there are some important differences that need to be accounted

for, between natural parental authority and civil or ecclesiastical authority,

when one is attempting to determine the lawfulness of any given "power;"

cf. _Lex, Rex_ pages 3-5 and especially page 71.

The Reformed Presbytery gives us the answer concerning the question of

history as term of fellowship (in *their* testimony on this point):

"Nor otherwise can a Christian know the time or place of his birth, or the

persons whom God commands him to honor as his father and mother, than

by uninspired testimony; and the same is true of his covenant obligations,

if baptized in infancy. Against all who ignorantly or recklessly reject or

oppose history as a bond of fellowship, in the family, in the state, but

especially in the church, we thus enter our solemn and uncompromising

protest." (_Act, Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted

Reformation_, [1876 edition] SWRB reprint 1995, p. 178).

It is clear, then, that we can obey the fifth commandment with respect to

our natural parents only by uninspired historical testimony. Equally so, it

is only by uninspired historical testimony that we can know who our

ecclesiastical and civil "parents" are, and so obey the fifth commandment

respecting them.

This is why we *must* require adherence to historical attainments in

reformation as a bond of fellowship if truly we are to promote the unity,

purity, and growth of the church. If we do not demand (as do the

Scriptures -- I Cor. 11:19; Eph. 4:11-16; Phil. 3:16; II Cor. 10:8; 13:8,10;

etc.) that history be a bond of fellowship, we will have an impossible time

determining, with certainty, if we are submitting to our mother or to a

harlot (ecclesiastically), to our father or to the beast (civilly). God

*commands* submission to lawful authority, but nowhere in his word does

he give us the names of the authorities to whom we are to submit.

Likewise, he *commands* us *not* to submit to unlawful authority, but,

again, does not tell us specifically who these alleged "powers" are. In the

nature of the case, then, we must look *outside* Scripture (using Scripture

as our criteria) in order to *obey* Scripture. With reference to the church,

those possessing lawful authority from Christ cannot be determined simply

by an abstract, ahistorical test: it is impossible to judge whether an alleged

authority is working for the truth or against it (2 Cor. 13:8; Eph. 4:11-16)

apart from an evaluation of the level of sanctification granted the church

thus far in redemptive history (Prov. 22:28; Rev. 2:25), and whether that

alleged authority is maintaining and building upon this sanctification or

rather destroying it. Thus, Paul describes his lawful authority as "power

which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction" (2 Cor.

13:10). Backsliding from attained growth in grace (i.e. corporate

sanctification) is not edification, but destruction. Therefore, no "authority"

working against any of these former biblical attainments bears God’s

stamp of approval: God has granted no authority for backsliding. For more

on this topic see my _A Contemporary Covenanting Debate; Or, Covenanting

Redivivus_ FREE at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovDebRB.htm (or as

a bound photocopy from SWRB), especially the last half (in the sections)

dealing with ecclesiastical and civil attainments. A very helpful exposition

of these principles, as they apply to the civil government, is also found in

Greg Price’s, _Biblical Civil Government vs. the Beast; and the Basis for Civil

Resistance_, FREE at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/BibCG_GP.htm (or as

a bound photocopy from SWRB).

To put a little sharper point on this part of the discussion, Shield's classic

_A Hind Let Loose_ ([1678, 1797 ed.] SWRB reprint 1995) demonstrates

how separation from backsliding churches has long been considered the

classical Protestant position,

"5. 'It is granted by *all that write against separatists*, that separation

from a church is lawful, when the case so falleth out, that union cannot be

kept up with her without sin,' Voet. Polit. Eccles. p. 68 quest 17.

6. The grave author of Rectius Instruendem Confut.. 3 dial. chap. pag. 7 &c.

'Allows, every separation is not schism, even from the church which hath

essentials; yea, and more than essentials: if it be from those (though never

so many) who are *drawing back from whatever piece of duty and

integrity is attained*; for this is still to be held fast, according to many

scripture commands. So Elias, when God's covenant was forsaken, was as

another Athanasius (I and I only am left) in point of tenacious integrity"

(empahses added).

It is interesting that the best of the older Reformed writers designated our

position (regarding attainments and separation) as one of "tenacious

integrity," while you and the backslidden modern church rain down (in

your ignorance) slander and derisive comments on the classic Protestant

position.

Clarkson, in _Plain Reasons for Presbyterians Dissenting..._, also proves (by

numerous Scripture proofs, specific acts of Assembly, the Solemn League

and Covenant, etc.) how retrogression from attainments (corporately)

makes a church unfit for ecclesiastical fellowship. He documents exactly

what historical attainments were achieved during the second (or

covenanted) Reformation and how these are to be reflected in our

ecclesiastical terms of church communion. Reason 14 in this book

("Presbyterian Dissenters decline the Communion of this Church; because

she is unsound and sinful in the Terms of her Communion") is an

exceedingly valuable section of writing and should be pursued by all those

who are willing to take an honest look at what we (in Edmonton) are also

maintaining at the close of the twentieth century (with application to the

contemporary "churches"). I can't imagine anyone reading this section of

_Plain Reasons_, never mind the whole book, and then proclaiming any of

the modern *Presbyterian* denominations lawfully constituted visible

churches.

With a return to the understanding of these lost Reformation truths we

will again see the power of the the Lord's remnant testimony -- as "the

woman in the wilderness" (Rev. 12:6) cries out against the civil and

ecclesiastical beast (and their usurping of Christ's royal prerogatives). This

is beautifully illustrated by the Reformed Presbytery (the last covenanted

Reformed Presbyterian Presbytery) in their _Act, Declaration and

Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation_,

"Likewise the presbytery testify against all ministerial or church

communion with such, who, though they may occupy the place of office-

bearers in the church of Christ, yet are destitute of those qualifications

indispensably required by the church's Head, or enter not into their office

by the door he has appointed in his word, own another head than Christ, or

apostatize and *fall from the truth* and cause of Christ, *formerly*

espoused and sworn to by them in a church capacity; against all active

owning and countenancing of such, by attending upon any of their corrupt

ministrations, or receiving any ordinances from such, to whom the Lord

has denied his blessing. Against all voluntary contracting with prelates,

curates, or such officers of human invention in the church, for paying

tithes or other dues unto them, as unto lawful, scriptural parish ministers.

For besides that there is nothing due unto them, their office having no

divine authority; so there being under the New Testament a change of the

priesthood, there is also a change of the law, respecting tithes; according to

Heb. 7:12; Rev. 2:20, etc. By all which it appears, from what is above

asserted and declared concerning these two divine distinct ordinances, the

ministry and magistracy, that the principles maintained thereanent by the

presbytery, are nothing else than an endeavour, as a judicatory of the Lord

Jesus Christ, constituted in his name, *to hold fast the church of Scotland's

testimony*, agreeable to the scriptures of truth, her confession and

covenants, fundamental acts and constitutions both of church and state;

and this, according to the command of the church's sole King and Head;

Rev. 2:25, and 3:11. And what is testified against (above--RB), is, in the

nature of it, an homologation of the church's faithful opposition to

*backsliders, in their course of defection, from the national attainments in

religion and reformation*, resisting even unto blood, striving against sin"

(pp. 202-203, emphases added to highlight sections resting on the

foundation of the biblical doctrine of attainments).

(The preceding comments are also inextricably linked to the matter of

*close communion*, which is the classical Protestant position. I have

already written on this subject and thus refer you to my _Calvin, Close

Communion and the Coming Reformation_ [it is available FREE of charge at:

http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CalvinCC.htm or you

can write us for a free copy of the hard copy version].)

In sum, we are not "Reformed Finneyites" as you calumniate, but are

simply adhering to the Scriptures’ command to try "them which say they

are apostles [or any other leaders in the church -- RB], and are not" (Rev.

2:2). We do this by Scripturally evaluating, in the light of the growth in

sanctification God has granted to his church, whether such alleged leaders

are using their authority for edification (by holding fast what Christ has

given his church) or for destruction. In doing so, we affirm that,

*essentially*, there are not differing terms of communion for Christ’s

church throughout history. However, we also affirm (with the Scriptures)

that it is only in history that these essential terms can be faithfully

applied, expounded, and defended. Thus, what was not explicitly required

as a term of communion at an earlier date must be explicitly required at a

later date, for a challenge to that portion of the truth has been made at

some later point (not all such challenges occurred within the first century),

and it is incumbent upon all generations thereafter to maintain the

testimony emitted by her faithful predecessors. 'For there must be also

heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest

among you" (I Cor. 11:19). Although we are called to be "perfect" (Matt.

5:48) we are not "perfectionistic," but are simply upholding what is

absolutely necessary for true obedience to the fifth commandment. We

value the unity, peace, and purity of Zion so highly that we will not suffer

the freedom God has granted through previous reformations to be

encroached, "No, not for an hour" (Gal. 2:5).

>I realize you may

>feel that we are now in "controversy mode" and it may be easy to blow off

>what we are saying as expressions driven by that controversy. But please

>hear me out. I am not sure that you really understand how you all come

>across to those who are your friends.

The problem is not in our perception of how we look to "our friends,"

(though I don't know many friends that lie about me [as in your

"Telepathy" mudslinging], and against the Reformation, publicly [by calling

the modern day Reformers "perfectionists' and "anabaptists."]), the

problem is among those who have apostatized from the faith (in various

areas). That, in the hardness of their hearts, these "friends" become angry

when we expose their sin, is a sign of their backsliding, *not* our

unfaithfulness or lack of understanding (cf. _Alexander and Rufus_

throughout). I pray that you will take this to heart before you are

judicially stricken with more blindness (II Thess. 2:10-12) than you are

already exhibiting. Moreover, many of our friends are repenting of the sins

that we are now pointing out, as we by God’s grace did ourselves when

these things were revealed to us. That the great Reformation truths which

we are publishing are shaking up the comfortable neopresbyterians (PCA,

OPC, RPCNA, etc.), sub-Reformed "evangelicals" (whether they be

Independents, Arminians, Baptists, Charismatics, CRC, etc.),

Reconstructionists, Lutherans, etc. (and that some, in their folly oppose

themselves regarding the covenanted Reformation), is to be expected --

this has always been the case. Thankfully, many others are being granted

repentance. The cleansing of the temple (individually, ecclesiastically and

civilly) is never accomplished without controversy. Anyone who thinks

otherwise is just not familiar with Scripture or history (John 2:13-17; Acts

17:6ff.; Acts 16:20ff.; Ezek. 16:2; etc.)

>Public offenses may be addressed publicly. This is how Christ dealt with

the

>Pharisees, and how Paul dealt with Peter at Antioch. This is how (in one

>respect) you dealt with Frame. He had written a public book, and public

>responses to it are quite acceptable. You had no responsibility to go to

>Frame privately before responding to his book

Agreed, and the only reason that I have taken the non-public route (thus

far) regarding the lies that you have printed about me was in the hopes

that you would have already publicly repented (and thus saved yourself

the future loss of credibility that will occur when these matters are made

public, and it is demonstrated that you have lied in what you printed

about me). Even some of my customers, after they had asked me about

your "Telepathy" smear and then heard my side of the story, thought that

you would repent -- maybe this engendered some false hope on my part

(though I still pray that you will be granted repentance).

Furthermore, and most importantly, throughout your last reply to me *you

do not answer the one major charge that I was bringing against you*: This

charge remains and is that *what you printed about me in

_Credenda/Agenda_ was a lie*. You did not even address this charge. Did

you lie or did you tell the truth? If you told the truth please prove that I

had not read Frame's book, as you printed in _Credenda/Agenda_. I can

easily prove otherwise.

The question here is not whether I had studied enough of Frame to say

what I did; the question is whether you lied or not. You said that I had not

read Frame's book. I had read some of it. Thus, you publicly lied about me.

This is the sin of which you need to repent.

Keep in mind that you did not print that I had not read *enough* of

Frame's book to make the charges that I did (even if that was what you

were thinking, as your leters to Greg Price seem to indicate): you said that

I had not read it *at all*.

If you want to make other charges, as you do below (regarding whether I

had read *enough* of Frame), that is a different question; but it is not the

question that I am addressing -- it is also not what you printed. You lied

about me publicly and you need to repent.

>, and we had no responsibility

>to come to you before responding to your public denunciation of Frame.

(And

>again, the issue for us is not the fact of your disagreement with Frame; the

>problem was how you managed your disagreement with him -- i.e.

unscripturally).

Again, this is *not* what you printed, and therefore this is *not* the issue.

The issue is that you printed what was not true about me and you are

unwilling to repent.

>With regard to the controversy over Frame, we would be willing to print

>something like this from Reg: "I acknowledge that I was out of line by

>publicly declaring on the justice of excommunicating John Frame without

>myself having evaluated the evidence in question according to the highest

>standards of evidential rigor required by such a serious pronouncement."

I would never agree to printing this because it is not true. I had seen

Frame's previous debate in the _Westminster Theological Journal_ and his

book is just repeating many the same heresies for which he was challenged

there. I had read (and had had read to me) more than enough of Frame's

Reformation-denying heresies in his new book to assert that anyone who

knows even a little about what took place at the Reformation would

correctly conclude that Frame would have been excommunicated by all the

faithful churches of those days. Moreover, I am not bound to satisfy a

"standard of evidential rigor" that arises, not from sound scriptural or

historical scholarship, but from your ignorance of the Reformation

doctrines regarding worship, the sacraments, and the church. I have not

only read numerous pre-twentieth century books concerning worship, the

sacraments, and the church, but I have also read a number of the modern

books that attempt to deal with these questions -- and, in my opinion,

Frame's book on worship is the worst I have seen yet. Additionally, the

Koran can be sharply denounced without having read all of it (as you

yourself readily admitted in an earlier correspondence), and so can

heretics like Frame, whose folly is manifest unto all with eyes to see (II

Tim. 3:9).

What I said on the Knox Ring regarding Frame was true and totally

appropriate -- and I am grieved that others had not publicly rebuked

Frame, in this manner, previous to my testimony. If we lived in the

covenanting days Frame would have not only been excommunicated, but

he would have also been proceeded against with negative civil sanctions.

Are there no David’s in the land who will take on our modern Goliaths (i.e

those who have become the chief enemies of the Lord's covenanted Zion by

taunting the church with their attainment-denying heresies)? Have those

who profess themselves shepherds grown so dull that they can watch the

sheep being mauled and carried away by those who prey upon the weak

and sickly in the flock -- and yet not even lift their voices against such

folly? What Frame promotes (regarding worship) is closer to a circus than

the worship commanded by God for use in the church of Christ. But, again,

what you said in "Telepathy" (about what I said) was a lie and totally

inappropriate. Simply put, **that** is the issue: cease your puerile evasions

and deal with it!

>We

>would be glad to print something like this, and we would be happy then

to

>include something from us on our continued fellowship both with you and

with

>John Frame. And if your conscience will not permit you to make such a

>statement, we nevertheless want to continue in fellowship with you, if

you

>would be kind enough to permit it.

We have no ecclesiastical fellowship with you (and you would not be

allowed to be a member in our church -- because of your aberrant beliefs

and practices), so I will assume that you are talking about private

fellowship. As long as you will hear the truth and not oppose it, then this

can continue -- but you are perilously close to putting an end to even that

(2 Thes. 3:6; Rom. 16:17).

>We do not suppose that such disagreements

>as we are having necessarily require nefarious or dishonest motives on

the

>part of the other. We assume this of you; please consider that as a

>possibility from your vantage as well.

I am not (nor have I ever been) talking about your motives (because I do

not know them -- my telepathic skills are a little rusty); I'm talking about

what you *did.* Again, the issue which started this controversy between us

is: Was what you printed in _Credenda/Agenda_ about me true or was it

false? I maintain that it was a lie and that you need to repent of this lie.

The smokescreens that you keep throwing up do not refer to what you

printed or what the initial point of controversy was (and is) between us

(though the consequence of your initial attack on me has stirred up

numerous other areas of disagreement). *You printed*, referring to my

comments regarding Frame's book: "all this insight without reading the

book." You *did not print* "all this insight without reading *enough* of the

book." If you would have printed the latter statement then I would have

just brushed it off as your misinformed opinion; but you printed the

former words and these words are violations of the ninth commandment --

because I had read some of the book (which I can easily prove, and which

was already clearly stated in my comments on the Knox-ring).

Furthermore, as previously noted, I had also seen the interchange that

took place (a number of years ago) in the _Westminster Theological

Journal_ in which Frame was pushing many of the same heresies

(regarding worship) which he repeats in his book. He has been answered

before (though not sternly rebuked), showing that others are well aware of

his deviations from the classical Protestant views concerning worship. By

the way, the views on worship which Frame espoused in the _Westminster

Theological Journal_ were also worthy, in any duly constituted church, of

excommunication. That the PCA does not excommunicate John Frame (and

all the others in that declining denomination that deny the regulative

principle) is just one more clear demonstration of their apostasy.

>If you permit, I would like to take a paragraph or more to answer a

number

>of the various questions which have come up between us, and then move

on to

>address what I consider to be the root problem. Pastor Greg, you asked if

it

>had occurred to me that I had a duty to contact Reg in order to remove

the

>offence. First, I thought you were interceding on his behalf and so I did

>not respond to him directly. Secondly, with regard to the principle, I have

>contacted Reg as many times as he contacted John Frame, and we were

*both*

>within scriptural boundaries. Third, I am more than happy to contact Reg

>directly in order to remove any grounds of offense between us (if you all

>think that this would be profitable). I suggest a phone conversation which

>may communicate some nuances which are beyond the black and white of

these

>letters. Would that be agreeable?

I have nothing against this, but I do wonder why you didn't call me earlier.

>With regard to covenanted reformation, you asked if we really were

promoting

>the same thing. Please check my article in Antithesis written years ago

>entitled "Covenant Evangelism."

You seem to have little (or no) idea about what we are talking about when

we say "covenanted Reformation" -- your article in _Antithesis_

notwithstanding. We are not talking about a *general* application of

covenants to a few aspects of Christian concern: we are talking about

*specific* historical attainments (and they are not attainments unless they

are agreeable to the Word of God) concerning the moral persons of the

church of Christ, and of the nations (cf. _A Short Vindication of Our

Covenanted Reformation_ by the Reformed Presbytery and Samuel

Rutherford's "How Covenants Bind Us," in chapter 21 of his _Free

Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience_ [1649]).

Even the little you seem to understand about the descending obligation of

lawful covenants would only serve to exhibit further your spiritual

adultery in the matters in which we differ. In your article you speak of the

continuing obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant -- thus

sanctioning it as a legitimate (and therefore containing no matter

disagreeable to the Word of God) covenant. Forgetting civil obligations for

the moment, please tell me: If this was a binding covenant (and as you

seem to understand it can only be binding so long as it is in accord with

the Word of God), when did the Presbyterian church (descending, in her

purest form, as she did from the original covenanting church, the Church of

Scotland) come out from under the covenanted uniformity "in religion,

confession of faith, form of church-government, directory for worship and

catechising," sworn 350-odd years ago?

Are you aware that the Westminster Standards, including the _Directory

for Public Worship_, were produced in fulfillment of the Solemn League

and Covenant (cf. the title pages of this and the other documents produced

by the Assembly, which read, "as a part of the covenanted uniformity in

religion betwixt the churches of Christ in the kingdoms of Scotland,

England, and Ireland")? Are you aware that the _Directory for Public

Worship_ mandated only the singing of Psalms in public worship (as a part

of the covenanted uniformity in worship)? This is easily demonstrated by

consulting Robert Baillie's _Letters and Journals_ ([1647-1661] SWRB

reprint 1994), pp. 3, 12, 21, 60, 97, 525-556; Michael Bushell's _Songs of

Zion_, (Crown and Covenant, second edition, 1993), p. 190ff.; and the _Acts

of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from the Year 1638 to

the Year 1649 Inclusive_, ([1682] SWRB reprint 1996), pp. 228, 238, 172,

353-354. In fact, I defy anyone to produce one shred of evidence that the

making of a separate "hymnal" (full of man-made compositions) was ever

discussed at the Westminster Assembly (much less presented to

parliament, as was all the work of the Assembly), or the Scottish General

Assembly (from 1638-1649, or long after) -- which General Assembly

ecclesiastically ratified the Westminster Standards. Regarding worship this

speaks to the original intent of the framers of the Westminster standards

and exposes how prevalent the sin of perjury is among those ministers

who have taken vows, without mental reservation, to uphold these

standards -- while they continue to practice (even in ignorance) anything

other than exclusive Psalmody. The battles over the Psalter (i.e. the

debates concerning translators, publication, civil and ecclesiastical

ratification, etc.) are all well documented; yet strangely, not one word was

ever recorded about any debates, votes or proclamations regarding a man-

made "hymnal." This is truly amazing, if a human "hymnal" had indeed

ever been considered (never mind ratified by the different levels of

church and civil government) as in keeping with the covenanted

uniformity in worship aimed at by these divines -- given the "strict

regulativist" makeup of both the Westminster Assembly and the Scottish

General Assembly. On top of this these divines did not even need to

mention the judaizing heresy of the use of musical instruments in public

worship, because that was not an issue among the Reformed folk of the

day. Even the civil magistrate of that period knew enough about Scripture

to provide for the eradication of organs, "along with (the--RB) other

remains of Popery" (_Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of

Scotland from the Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_, [1682] SWRB

reprint 1996, p. 228). Those that celebrated Popish holy-days like the

"Christ-mass" were also censured (in accord with the Scottish _First Book of

Discipline_ [1560, here even civilly] and _Acts of the General Assembly of

the Church of Scotland_, p. 285 and Scripture). This is not to mention

second Reformation views concerning close communion, ultra "strict

subscriptionism" (as you call it) and the many other points (all agreeable to

the Word of God) included in the original intent of the source documents of

the Covenanted Reformation (what you have already termed

"Anabaptistic," "perfectionistic," etc.).

I will not enter into this any further now, but if you do not repent after

this letter, this whole subject (of the specific nature of the covenanted

uniformity of worship [doctrine, government, etc.] called for [in Scripture]

and by this Reformation covenant) will be addressed in my public

testimony against you -- along with many of the other questions that you

have raised throughout these discussions (previously and below).

I do not know if you understand this yet, but on this count you are in the

same boat as Frame, aimlessly drifting down the stream of defection and

deformation. You openly deny the covenanted uniformity aimed at in the

Solemn League and Covenant regarding worship and you practice and

preach (contrary to the Solemn League and Covenant and the second

commandment) idolatry in your public worship. That you are a covenant

breaker in this regard is simply historical fact (and can be easily verified

by reading the source documents of that period, not the least of which is

the _Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland from the Year

1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive_). The biblical basis for each of my

assertions can easily be demonstrated (and already has been demonstrated

in numerous books that I have republished) for those who have ears to

hear.

Your review of Frame's book, alone, provides plenty of covenant-denying,

anti-Reformation evidence to attest to what I am saying here against you.

In that review you explicitly deny one of the four major points of

covenanted uniformity (i.e. the point to do with the specific doctrine and

practises concerning the purity of public worship). There is no way around

this: historically you would have been seen as one of the malignants, not as

a classical Protestant -- and certainly not as one upholding the blood-

bought heritage of the Covenanters.

>The thing that grieves me most about what

>you all are doing is this: you appear to be working hard to find every

>caricature of faithful covenanting ever mentioned by the enemies of

>covenants, and doing your level best to live out that caricature in flesh

>and blood.

Can you provide some specifics? To which caricatures are you referring?

Please cite books (or articles) and page numbers. Sorry Doug, but given

your track record, your word is no longer good with me: you have shown

great facility in making such unsubstantiated assertions before.

>More on this below, but I have no hesitation in saying that your

>work is rapidly becoming the single biggest obstacle to a renewal of the

>covenants. Of course the enemies of covenantal thinking will always see

what

>they want to see, but you are rapidly alienating every natural ally you

>might have in the work of reformation.

Come on Doug, how do you know all this? Telepathy? We are experiencing

a tremendous outpouring of support for every facet of our work (as noted

above) -- along with the increased opposition from the modern day

malignants. If you could only see what is happening I am sure that you

would be staggered by the magnitude of God's blessing that we see and

experience every day! What is happening here is so exciting that I often

find it hard to fall asleep at night. What I have read concerning how the

Holy Spirit was working in Geneva in the time of Calvin, in Scotland during

Knox's day and at the height of second Reformation, is what we see

happening here. That we believe the same things that these great

Reformers did, follow the same confessions, promote the same books, etc.,

is certainly no coincidence. That you (and others like you) oppose these

Reformers at some of the most fundamental points of Reform (especially

concerning worship, church government, the sacraments, covenanting and

church discipline) should also be noted. Those who trust you need to be

made aware that though you mouth some of the language of the

Reformation, you are an enemy to some of the most important biblical

attainments of this period -- at some points leading the simple and

ignorant into anabaptism (one example being your promotion of the

doctrine of pretended liberty of conscience) and at others leading them

right into the arms of the Roman harlot (your Jesuit eschatology [i.e.

Preterism] being a case in point here). You may continue to judge who you

think is "every natural ally" (though the flesh is often mistaken regarding

such matters); we will praise God for all those who continue to prove

themselves to be our true (and super-natural) allies -- and for those who

have and are about to join with us in the Lord's call for a third

Reformation!

>I agree with Rutherford's distinction between a valid calling and a lawful

>calling. Caiaphas was a valid High Priest, but he did not come to the office

>lawfully. But you say, referring to Brown, that the ministry of the scribes

>and Pharisees was not to be endorsed. This places you at some variance to

>someone else who failed to live up to the standards of the first and second

>Reformation when he said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses'

seat.

>Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do

not

>do according to their works; for they say, and do not do" (Matt. 23:2b-3).

Doug, do you think that you are the first one to have asked Protesting

Covenanters these questions? You sometimes sound as if you do. If so

please see 1 Cor. 10:12. This objection has been cleared in a number of

Reformation books, of which I will cite only two. Interestingly, Brown went

on to answer the very objection you have raised against us, in the section

of his book (_Apologetical Relation_) just below the quote Greg Price sent,

to which you here refer (above). Perhaps you haven't read Brown for

yourself. He states, in answer to your question regarding Moses' seat:

"It will be objected, 1. That Christ commandeth to hear the scribes and the

Pharisees who did sit in Moses' chair, Matt. xxiii. And those of whom now

the question is are not worse than the scribes and Pharisees were; and

therefore it cannot be lawful to refuse obedience unto this act. Ans. For

solution of this objection, which seemeth to be the main one, these things

would be considered: 1. That those scribes and Pharisees were as naughty

men as then lived upon the face of the earth, and were still enemies unto

Christ, and were false teachers; their doctrine was leavened with sour and

dangerous tenets, among which this was a chief, That Christ was not the

Messias; and upon this account Christ desireth his disciples to 'beware of

the leaven of the Pharisees,' Matt. xvi. 6. 2. They were men that had no

lawful call unto that place which they did assume to themselves, which

appeareth from these particulars: (1.) Christ calleth them thieves, and

robbers, and strangers, John x. 1, 5, 8, and that not merely because of their

false doctrine, nor yet merely because of their carnal way of entry, as

hirelings seeking gain, but also because of their usurping the place and

office, and entering thereinto without a call from God; for the ground and

reason why Christ calleth and proveth them to be thieves and robbers is,

because they entered not by the door, but climbed up some other way, and

the porter did not open unto them (ver. 3), and they came before him; that

is, without his warrant and commission: they took not the right way of

entry, they came not in at the right door, and with God's approbation. (2.)

Matt. xv. 13, Christ calleth them plants which his 'heavenly Father hath not

planted,' and there he is speaking of themselves (and not of their doctrine

only), who were offended at Christ's doctrine, and it was them (and not

their doctrine alone) that Christ would have his disciples to let alone: 'Let

them alone (says he), for they be blind leaders of the blind;' and this will

suit the scope very well; for his disciples had laid some weight on this, that

they were men in office, and therefore the stumbling and offending of

them seemed to be some great business. But Christ replieth, that albeit

they had been planted, or had planted themselves, in that office and

charge, yet they were such plants as his heavenly Father had never

planted, and therefore they were the less to be regarded. Gualther on the

place saith, 'That it is clear, out of history, that God did never institute the

order of the scribes which then was, far less the Pharisees and Sadducees;

but they had their rise from that Greek or heathenish school, which Jason,

whom Seleucus made high priest, did institute in Jerusalem, contrary to

the law; and that the Pharisees did spring from the Stoics, and the

Sadducees from the Epicures?' and citeth in the margin, 1 Mach. 1, and 2

Mach. 4. So, ibid., he giveth the sense of that word, 'let them alone,'

*discedite abiis*,-go away from them. (3.) The place which they had

assumed did properly and of right belong unto the priests and Levites, as

Pareus hinteth on the place; yet these, because of their learning and pride,

thinking themselves only worthy to be in office, took upon them that place,

without any further call; which is the more likely, considering, (4.) That

those times were times of confusion and disorder, so that (as Grotius

observeth) there was no care had about this business, but every man who

pleased was free to take upon him to instruct and teach the people; and

this is confirmed by that passage, Acts xiii. 15, 'And after the reading of

the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them,

saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the

people, say on.' Consider, 3. That though the words (ver. 2), be rendered,

'They sit in Moses' seat,' they may