Creeds, Confessions and Covenants - Lord's Supper (Communion) - Separation, Unity, Uniformity, etc. - Church Government
Hold fast the form of sound words,
which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. -- 2
Timothy 1:13
And he gave . . . pastors and teachers,
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and
of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children,
tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine. -- Ephesians
4:11-14
Also [they] caused the people to
understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they read in the
book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to
understand the reading. -- Nehemiah 8:7-8
To see the unavoidable necessity of
uninspired creeds, consider the following conversation between Hans (a
paleopresbyterian) and Franz (a neopresbyterian):
HANS: We're studying the Westminster
Confession of Faith. Want to join us?
FRANZ: No; I don't give heed to the
words of men like you do.
H: What do you mean?
F: I go by the Bible. I can't rely on
the words of mere uninspired men.
H: Me, too. That's why we're studying
the Confession. You should join us; it'd be very edifying.
F: Wait a minute. I just told you that
I only go by the Bible, and yet you have just equated the study of this
Westminster Confession with a study of the Scriptures!
H: And as I just said, I only go by the
Bible, too. So, I'm not going to pay any attention to what you've just said.
You're not inspired, after all.
F: Of course I'm not inspired; but what
I said was right because it was BIBLICAL.
H: How could it be biblical if it was
merely what you -- an uninspired man -- told me? I only listen to the inspired
words of the Bible. Isn't it lording it over my conscience to tell me to accept
your uninspired words as though they were the very inspired words of God?
F: Oh, come on. I may not have quoted
chapter and verse, but I was telling you what the Bible MEANS. That's why you
have you have to pay attention to it.
H: Are you saying the meaning of the
Bible, even if explained in the uninspired words of uninspired men, is still
binding -- in fact, as binding as the very words written in the Bible?
F: Well, yes, that is what I'm saying.
The meaning of the Bible, though stated in different words, has the same
authority as the exact words found there. And since I'm telling you that the
meaning of the Bible is not to give heed to the uninspired words of men, you
still have to receive it as though those exact words I've spoken were written
in the pages of Scripture.
H: Wait a minute. How is what you've
just said any different from the Westminster Confession? After all, the writers
of the Confession were only putting forth what they thought was the meaning of
the Bible.
F: Well, er. . . umm. . . .
H: I know of one difference: they were
all preeminently qualified to expound the Word of God. They were recognized as
having these gifts by the various churches that delegated them to sit at the
Westminster Assembly. Any scholar who knows anything about Protestant history
knows that these men were the "cream of the crop", and that almost
certainly there has never been since that time (and maybe even up to that time,
except for the apostles themselves) one body containing so many godly and
learned men. I don't think you possess the same qualifications, at least not
yet.
F: Hmmm, good point.
H: Furthermore, the Holy Spirit says in
Ephesians 4 that Christ has given to the church teachers as a powerful and
necessary means to building up the body of Christ into "a perfect or
complete man". Obviously, these teachers do not have the gift of
inspiration, and yet the Spirit didn't view this as a challenge to the
sufficiency of Scripture, but rather as a necessary outgrowth of it. This is
because he desires that we know the meaning of the Bible, not just the bare
words. As R.L. Dabney said, "He who would consistently banish creeds must
silence all preaching and reduce the teaching of the church to the recital of
the exact words of Holy Scripture without note or comment."
And, just because these men lived in
the past doesn't mean that they're not a gift from God to us today. The Bible
everywhere speaks of the church as one body throughout all history (Gal.
3:23-24; 4:1-3; Ps. 66:6; Hos. 12:4; Deut. 5:2-3). Therefore, the astute
teachers of the past are our teachers as well, thanks to God's gracious
preservation of their writings. Actually, because these men were on the crest
of the waves of reformation, and not in the trough of apostasy as we are today,
we ought to pay more attention to them than to contemporary teachers. This is
because all of us -- including our teachers -- have been blinded by our
culture's wretched and extreme departure from the Lord Jesus Christ.
F: What time did you say you were meeting?
I believe the meaning of Scripture requires that I attend!
The primary object of terms of
communion in the Church is to exhibit the law and covenant of God, and then
agreement of persons in their apprehension of these, together with their joint
and declared resolution to walk accordingly. -- David Steele, The Two Witnesses
(published with his Notes
on the Apocalypse), p. 388.
And they continued stedfastly in the
apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. --
Acts 2:42.
Now I beseech you, brethren, by the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there
be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same
mind and in the same judgment. -- 1 Corinthians 1:10
Go thy way forth by the footsteps of
the flock. -- Song 1:8
Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask
for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find
rest for your souls. -- Jer. 6:16
There is not a doctrine of grace which
is not opposed, which is not supplanted by the false prophet. To state these doctrines,
to place them before the eye in logical connections, to apply them to saints
and sinners; to defend them and their just application when denied in theory
and disregarded in practice: to exemplify their sanctifying power in the hand
of the Spirit of Christ: this, this is the work of the witnesses. -- David
Steele, The Two Witnesses (published
with his Notes on the Apocalypse), p. 382.
Note: After the six terms of
ministerial and Christian communion (from the Reformed Presbytery's, Act,
Declaration, and Testimony,
pp. 216), there follows a dialogue to help explain them. This conversation is
again between Hans and Franz, the characters in "The Biblical and Logical
Necessity of Uninspired Creeds." Franz has been studying diligently, and
is now virtually a paleopresbyterian. A brief index of topics discussed, and of
some objections against our terms of communion is included before the dialogue
for quick reference (page numbers not included in the html format).
1. An acknowledgement of the Old and
New Testament to be the word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and
practice.
2. That the whole doctrine of the
Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are
agreeable unto, and founded upon, the Scriptures.
3. That Presbyterial Church Government
and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the
most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of
Government and Directory for Worship [both of these were productions of the
Westminster Assembly], adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second
Reformation [1638-1649].
4. That public, social covenanting, is
an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New
Testament; that the National Covenant and the Solemn League are an
exemplification of this divine institution; and that these Deeds are of
continued obligation upon the moral person [that is, the church in subsequent
ages]; and in consistency with this -- that the Renovation of these Covenants
at Auchensaugh [Scotland], 1712, was agreeable to the word of God.
5. An approbation of the faithful
contendings of the martyrs of Jesus, especially in Scotland, against Paganism,
Popery, Prelacy, Malignancy and Sectarianism; immoral civil governments;
Erastian tolerations and persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial
Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 and adopted
by this church, with supplements; as containing a noble example to be followed,
in contending for all divine truth, and in testifying against all corruptions
embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states.
6. Practically adorning the doctrine of
God our Savior by walking in all his commandments and ordinances blamelessly.
Definition of 'Terms of Communion'
Definition of Christ's witnesses
David Steele and "schism"
Uninspired creeds necessary as term of
communion
United States bound by Solemn League
and Covenant
Nations as moral persons
Church and nations, as moral persons,
have offspring
Descendants of covenanting churches
bound by Solemn League and Covenant
Different ways in which descendants can
be bound by Solemn League and Covenant
National Covenant and Solemn League and
Covenant are themselves attainments of reformation
Previous lawful covenants upheld in
newer covenants
Claiming to uphold the Covenants not
enough: must demonstrate that original intent is being upheld
Uninspired history absolutely necessary
to obey God's commandments; e.g. 5th com.
Doctrine and Practice (not just
doctrine) required as terms of communion
Faith without works is dead applies to
church as moral person, not simply individuals
True unity found in Scriptural doctrine
and practice; no unity without both of these
Differing level of authority for Bible
vs. the other standards
Derived, subordinate authority is still
real authority
Subordinate standards are only received
after careful Scriptural examination of them
Confession's distinction between
unlawful authority, and the unlawful exercise of lawful authority
Submission for conscience sake to
unlawful authority forbidden by God
Marks of the church: tests to
distinguish lawful and unlawful ecclesiastical authorities
Marks of the church must be applied in
history, not in a vacuum
Historical testimony necessary to
determine lawful authority in the church
Historical testimony absolutely vital
in evaluating our own individual sanctification
Expect faithfulness, not perfection
Growth beyond current understanding and
application of the truth expected
David Steele and "schism"
Erastianism and the Westminster
Confession
Obsession with Church of Scotland
during time of Reformation
Arbitrariness in upholding only the
National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant, and not all the other
covenants of the Reformation
RP's Terms of Communion actually
Popish, require implicit faith, place the writings of men on a par with the
Scripture
Requiring subscription to uninspired
history is going beyond the Scripture
Impossible for Bible to require
approval of contendings of martyrs, etc., because these contendings took place
after the Scripture was written
Allegations of 'perfectionism' and 'Anabaptism'
FRANZ: I sure am glad I saw that the
meaning of Scripture compelled me to study the Westminster Confession of Faith
with you. These past few months have been amazingly enlightening and edifying!
HANS: I'm very pleased to hear that.
Your diligence and eagerness have been an encouragement and motivation to me,
and to others.
F: Actually, I've been thinking of
joining your church for some time now. I got a copy of your terms of communion,
and they looked really good at first.
H: At first?
F: Well. . . yeah. Then I had some
discussions with a friend of mine -- a really sharp fellow -- who's a member of
the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America. They call themselves
'Covenanters', too.
H: And he put some doubts in your mind?
F: Yeah. Actually, when I told him
about your church, he said he already knew of you; he called you 'Steelites'. I
asked him why, and he said that David Steele and some others caused a schism
about 150 years ago when they separated from what is now the RPCNA to form 'The
Reformed Presbytery'. He said that the doctrines and terms of communion they --
and you -- adopted will forever perpetuate that schism.
H: Oh? How so?
F: He said you were basically Papists,
putting uninspired works on a par with the Bible and then abusing your church
authority by requiring faith in the church, rather than in the word of God.
H: That's no new charge. Did he
substantiate it? How much of Steele has he read?
F: I don't know; I didn't think to ask,
I was so confused at the time. We went through the six terms and I took notes.
Can you and I go through them? Maybe you can answer his objections.
H: Sure, I'd be happy to try. Let me
grab some books first. . . okay, shoot.
F: All right. Well, neither he nor I
had any problems with the first term -- "an acknowledgement of the Old and
New Testament to be the word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and
practice" -- or the sixth term -- "practically adorning the doctrine
of God our Savior by walking in all his commandments and ordinances
blamelessly." No true Christian can deny those. He said he agreed in
general with the second -- "that the whole doctrine of the Westminster
Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are agreeable
unto, and founded upon, the Scriptures" -- but that there were a few
things in the Confession he couldn't swallow.
H: Like what?
F: He said they imbibed the Erastianism
of their day, showing this by their giving far too much authority to the civil
government in matters of religion; especially in Chapter 23, Section 3.
H: The writings of the Westminster
divines certainly don't support such an unwarranted conclusion. Fact is, they
(except for two or three of them) ardently opposed Erastianism! They didn't
believe the civil government had any power in matters of religion, but only
about matters of religion. The wording of the very section of the Confession in
question makes this clear: "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself
the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the
kingdom of heaven."
F: Yeah, I know. I pulled out my copy
of The Divine Right of Church Government -- Jus Divinum Regiminis
Ecclesiastici, and showed
him the section against Erastianism, chapter 9. He quieted down and asked if he
could borrow it. I also showed him my Harmony of the Protestant Confessions, where it's clear that the Westminster
Confession says essentially the same thing as all the other reformed creeds.
Otherwise, he agreed with me that it's
not sufficient to have only a profession of the truth of the Bible as a term of
communion, but that some creed is necessary. He said if we don't have a creed,
virtually all heretics would be able to be members, because they all profess
the truth of the Bible. Just like you and I discussed before, that it's not
just the bare words of Scripture, but their meaning, that we need to uphold.
H: I'm glad he sees that; a lot of
people don't. It's also good that he's willing to do some reading and rethink
his assertions. That speaks well of him. What else did he, or do you, have
problems with?
F: He didn't say too much about the
third term -- "that Presbyterial Church Government and manner of worship
are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the most perfect model of
these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of Government and Directory for
Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the Second Reformation" --
except to criticize how caught up the Steelites are with the church of Scotland
at the time of the Second Reformation. I actually read through the Form of
Government and the Directory for Worship a couple of times. I have some points
I want to clarify, but I thought they were good and I didn't have any real
concerns. I find it interesting that the adopting act of the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland actually makes a point about sitting at a table for
the Lord's Supper, that it's not optional.
H: Yeah, I find it very telling as to
how precise they were. You know George Gillespie wrote that adopting act?
F: Really!
H: Not surprising; he argues for the
practice in his Miscellany Questions and in English Popish Ceremonies. Anyway, how about the 4th term -- "that
public, social covenanting, is an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and
nations under the New Testament; that the National Covenant and the Solemn
League are an exemplification of this divine institution; and that these Deeds
are of continued obligation upon the moral person; and in consistency with
this-- that the Renovation of these Covenants at Auchensaugh, 1712, was
agreeable to the word of God"?
F: Here's where he started to get more
animated, though the worst was over the 5th term. He asked me how Steelites
could say that the United States was still bound by the Solemn League and
Covenant, since we declared independence from England in 1776.
H: What did you say?
F: I didn't know what to say. Do you
think the United States is still obligated by this covenant?
H: Sure. Did Israel cease to be under
her covenant obligations when she split from Judah? Was she no longer bound not
to exterminate the Gibeonites, for example?
F: Well, I guess she was still under
her covenant obligations. But wasn't that an unlawful split? Ours was lawful --
Britain had flagrantly and habitually violated her agreement with us.
H: At this point, I'm not completely
sure, given what God promised to Jeroboam in I Kings 11. But let's assume
Israel's split wasn't lawful. If the Jews would have started other nations --
national offspring -- would these new nations be bound to the national
covenants of Israel their mother?
F: Perhaps. . . but they'd still be
separate nations. Why should one nation be bound to something another nation is
bound to?
H: Let's take some other examples and
maybe they'll make it more clear. Were the Rechabites (in Jeremiah 35) bound by
their father's covenant (dwelling in tents, drinking no wine, etc.)? After all,
they were separate individuals.
F: Yes, but that was a family, not a
nation.
H: True, but God views the nations as
moral persons.
F: What do you mean?
H: I mean that in God's eyes, a nation
has an individual character, a moral character, separate from the individuals
of which she is composed. Thus, not only are her individual members bound to
own God as their God, love righteousness and hate evil, etc., but she as a
nation, in her official character, is also to do these things. Furthermore, she
can and should, as a nation, enter into covenant with God. And since she
continues to exist as a nation even though the individuals comprising her
populace die, and new generations spring up, her covenant bonds made by leaders
in previous generations are still binding, because she -- as a nation, the
party originally covenanting with God -- still lives.
F: Hmmm. . . sounds plausible. Is there
any scriptural proof?
H: Oh, yes -- lots. Take just a couple
examples. In Genesis 50, Joseph required an oath of the children of Israel, to
carry his bones up out of Egypt when God would bring them out. Yet those taking
the oath died, too, and it was a long time after that that Moses led them out
-- and he brought Joseph's bones because he saw the oath as perpetually
binding. In fact, the Holy Spirit deemed it so important that he draws our
attention to it in Exodus 13:19, in the midst of all the flurry of activity and
wonder in their exodus. Another example is Joshua's covenant with the
Gibeonites, his promise not to kill them. Saul broke this promise a few hundred
years later, and the punishment came in David's time. No other view can explain
this adequately.
F: Okay, I agree; but we're still
talking about the same nations, not new nations.
H: True, but we need to consider that
the original nations taking the Solemn League and Covenant viewed not only
England, Scotland and Ireland to be bound, but "all his Majesty's
Dominions" to be bound as well -- see The Acts Of The Generall
Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the Year 1638 to the Year 1649
Inclusive, 4 June 1644,
Session 7, "The Letter from the Synod of Divines in the Kirk of England,
to the General Assembly", pp. 231, 232. Now, at that time "all his
Majesty's Dominions" included the American colonies. In fact, the founding
fathers explicitly referred to themselves as such -- as one of his Majesty's
dominions.
But even more to the point, can't
nations, as moral persons, have offspring? After all, the church, as a moral
person, has offspring (Rev. 12:1-2,17). So does the whore church of Babylon
(Rev. 17:5).
F: I suppose so. But are the offspring
of the church bound by their predecessors' covenants?
H: Are my children bound by the
covenant obligations I made on their behalf, as their representative head, in
baptism? Were the Rechabites bound by their father's covenant?
F: Oh, yeah. And I just remembered
Deuteronomy 5:3: "The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but
with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." Yet it's clear
from other passages, like Exodus 6, that he did make a covenant with that
earlier generation.
H: Right. Also, the Solemn League and
Covenant itself says "that we, and our posterity after us, may, as
brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the
midst of us. . . . we shall each one of us, according to our place and
interest, endeavour that [the three kingdoms] may remain conjoined in a firm
peace and union to all posterity." As we've already noted from the Acts of
the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at that time, their
"posterity" was not restricted to those living in the British Isles.
Consider also another quote from those Acts:
Albeit the League and Covenant be despised by
that prevailing party in England, and the Work of Uniformity, thorow [through]
the retardements and obstructions that have come in the way, be almost
forgotten by these Kingdoms, yet the obligation of that Covenant is perpetual,
and all the duties contained therein are constantly to be minded, and prosecute
by every one of us and our posterity, according to their place and stations. .
. . The Acts Of The Generall Assemblies Of The Church Of Scotland: From the
Year 1638 to the Year 1649 Inclusive, 27 July 1649, Session 27, "A seasonable and necessary
Warning and Declaration, concerning Present and Imminent dangers, and
concerning duties relating thereto; from the Generall Assembly of this Kirk,
unto all the Members thereof", p. 460.
It deserves emphasizing that if we
reject this principle of covenantal headship, or representation, we make much
of the Bible unintelligible, and we overthrow biblical presbyterianism, as I
noted in the example of baptism.
F: All right. So, I believe that
"public, social covenanting, is an ordinance of God, obligatory on
churches and nations under the New Testament." Why are only the National
Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant here mentioned? There were a lot of
other covenants during the reformation. My friend brought up the Steelite
'obsession' with the Church of Scotland again here.
H: Is your friend aware of his own
church's history? Perhaps he'd be interested to know that these 'Steelite'
Terms of Communion are essentially the same as what his own denomination used
to maintain. Steele wasn't innovating; he was simply calling on that body to
repent of their departures from their prior, sound standards. They didn't
separate right away, but tried time and again at the level of the Synod to get
that body to repent of her backsliding. When, after seven years it was clear
that the church obstinately refused (the church courts refused even to
adjudicate Steele's and the other men's complaints), he and a few others obeyed
the apostle's command to separate from those who persist stubbornly in their
error and thereby cause divisions (II Thess. 3:6,14-15; Rom. 16:17). Anyway, to
answer your question, at least in part. It's a very good question, and I'm glad
you asked it. First, as indicated, we're descendants of those who first took
these particular covenants. Nationally, we are the offspring of England (the
Solemn League and Covenant was not only an ecclesiastical, but a national
covenant). Ecclesiastically, we are the offspring of the Church of Scotland.
F: How so?
H: All Presbyterian bodies in America
and Canada -- indeed, I think most in the world -- trace their lineage back to
the Revolution church of 1689, which in turn is the heritage of the
Resolutioners -- those who broke covenant in 1651. An exception is your
friend's denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, who
although greatly apostatized, are the direct heirs of the original covenanters.
Also, some of us even trace our
familial lineage to England, Scotland, and Ireland.
Second, we know of no covenants that
rival, let alone excel, these covenants for their faithfulness to the
Scriptures. They are, in themselves, one of the attainments of the second
reformation which God requires us to live up to (Prov. 22:28; Phil. 3:16).
Hence, the fourth term of communion designates them, "an
exemplification" of the ordinance of covenanting.
F: But why don't you also include other
covenants, say from the days of Knox, or Calvin at Geneva, in your terms of
communion?
H: Actually, we own all scriptural
covenants of which we are the obliged posterity. We simply believe that
successive covenants, if they are faithful to the word of God in their content,
include in them the earlier covenants (assuming the newer covenants include
within them the duties sworn in the previous covenants). Thus, in upholding the
more recent, Scripturally faithful covenants we are upholding the other,
earlier covenants as well. And, I should add, we look for a day when the
National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant themselves will be
likewise upheld in newer covenants (for example, Isaiah 44:5 and Jeremiah
50:5).
F: Do you have any scriptural proof for
this idea of upholding earlier covenants in newer ones, without needing to own
the older ones explicitly?
H: Yes. We see this pattern throughout
the entire Bible. For instance, the covenant made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob
is subsumed or included within the covenant made with Moses (Deut. 4:23,31;
5:3). That covenant, in turn, is included within the covenant Joshua made with
the people (Josh. 24:22-25). Likewise, these earlier covenants are included
under or within the covenants of Jehoida (2 Kings 11:17-18), Asa (2 Chron.
15:8-19), Josiah (2 Chron. 34:31-33), and within the New Covenant (Gal.
3:13-18).
F: Okay. Now, why the 1712 Renovation
at Auchensaugh?
H: We believe the Scriptures teach that
covenants should be renewed under various dispensations of God's providence. In
fact, the National Covenant was itself a renovation of the earlier 'King's
Covenant', with expansion or explanation of this earlier covenant, and with
added legal proofs from the Acts of Scotland's Parliament. There have been
other 'renovations', for example, by the Seceders, but not necessarily faithful
renovations.
F: What was wrong with the Seceders'
renovations?
H: See chapter 3 of the Act,
Declaration, and Testimony.
Basically, they deny the scriptural doctrine of the civil government as upheld
in the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant. Though some Seceders
have valiantly and skillfully championed reformational truths, they have not
fully upheld the attainments of our covenanted forefathers. They are, sadly,
covenant breakers, though they claim to be the heirs of the covenanters.
F: Wait -- so this is just like the
creeds issue. People are claiming that they uphold the covenants of our
forefathers, but merely claiming this doesn't make it so. Just like those
claiming to believe the Bible have to be tested by a standard -- the creeds --
so, too, do those claiming to uphold the covenants need to be tested by some
standard to see if they really uphold them in their originally intended sense.
H: Exactly. That's why M'Millan and the
others renewing the covenants at Auchensaugh added the marginal notes, so that
it was unmistakably clear what the original covenants truly meant.
F: And what they didn't mean.
H: Right. And this leads quite
naturally into the fifth term, "An approbation of the faithful contendings
of the martyrs of Jesus, especially in Scotland, against Paganism, Popery,
Prelacy, Malignancy and Sectarianism; immoral civil governments; Erastian
tolerations and persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial
Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 and adopted
by this church, with supplements; as containing a noble example to be followed,
in contending for all divine truth, and in testifying against all corruptions
embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states."
F: Good, because my friend really
became, shall I say, 'lively', on this one. This is where the charges of
Popery, implicit faith, undermining the sufficiency and authority of the Bible,
etc., were flying the fastest and heaviest. And, frankly, I don't know how to
answer these charges, and I wonder if they aren't at least somewhat accurate. I
certainly respect the faithful saints of days past, but how can you justify a
mandatory subscription to uninspired history?!
H: Maybe at this point it'd be helpful
to review the phrase, 'terms of communion'. What do you understand it to mean?
F: Something required in order for you
to come to the Lord's Table.
H: Right. I like Steele's definition,
from The Two Witnesses (page
388 of his Notes On the Apocalypse) -- "the primary object of terms of communion in the Church
is to exhibit the law and covenant of God, and then agreement of persons in
their apprehension of these, together with their joint and declared resolution
to walk accordingly." Now, in a nutshell, we believe that divine truth is
the only, and completely sufficient basis for our terms of communion.
F: Okay -- but where does the Bible
ever require "An approbation of the faithful contendings of the martyrs of
Jesus, especially in Scotland, etc." or even, "that the National
Covenant and the Solemn League are an exemplification of" covenanting, in
order for someone to come to the Lord's Table? It's impossible in the nature of
the case, since these occurred 1500 years after the canon was closed!
H: I understand your concern; it took
me awhile to get past this hurdle, too. Am I correct in saying that you don't
think uninspired history should be required to come to the Lord's Table?
F: Yes, that's right. That's why my
friend said that 'Steelites' put the writings of uninspired men on a par with
the Scriptures.
H: Which clearly implies that the
Scriptures and the Scriptures alone should be the term of communion. Do you
agree with this? Do you think that adherence to only inspired -- that is,
infallible, incapable of error -- writings should be what is required to come
to the Lord's Table?
F: Yes. That's all the apostles
required.
H: Well, then, we should cut out not
only the uninspired history as a term of communion, but the creeds, and really,
any statement not found directly in the Scriptures, since these are all
uninspired and therefore fallible (capable of error) writings of uninspired
men.
F: Hmmm. . . I think I see where you're
going. This is sounding a lot like the creeds discussion we had before. But I'm
still not completely clear.
H: Let's consider an example. Do you
believe that honor to parents should be a term of communion?
F: Sure; it's a direct command.
H: Fine. Where does the Bible say who
one's parents are?
F: What?
H: How do we come to know who,
specifically, to honor?
F: The Bible, of course. It's a direct
command.
H: Yes, but it's a general command. It
doesn't tell us specifically who our parents are, that we may honor them.
F: You're right!
H: So how do you know who your parents
are, in order to obey this direct command? Isn't determining or recognizing
one's parents a matter of historical record?
F: Yes, I guess so.
H: So, is this a matter of inspired
historical record, or uninspired?
F: Uninspired. . . I can't verify that
my parents are really my parents apart from them and others telling me so --
and all these people are uninspired. I was there at my birth, but I don't have
a memory of it!
H: And yet, honoring one's parents is a
term of communion. So, uninspired historical testimony is required as a term of
communion. It can't be any other way.
F: Interesting. But is it the same for
the historical data and documents you require?
H: Well, does the Bible command us to
covenant, and when we, or our covenantal representatives do so, are we required
to keep our covenants?
F: Yes; it's just like with the command
to honor one's parents. There is a general command: to covenant, and to keep
and renew prior righteous covenants that originally included posterity. But the
specific application of this command can only be made by looking to uninspired
historical testimony.
H: So, you're okay with having the two
covenants and the endorsement of the renovation of these at Auchensaugh as
terms of communion? These being specific instances of general scriptural
commands, binding us to our duty specifically?
F: Yes. But is there a command
requiring the approbation of the martyrs' contendings, and especially a command
about the Act, Declaration, and Testimony?
H: Good question. Let's look at some
biblical warrant for such approbation:
Phil. 1:27: "Stand fast in one spirit, with
one mind striving together for the faith of the gospel."
1 Cor. 1:10: "Now I beseech you, brethren,
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and
that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together
in the same mind and in the same judgment."
Heb. 12:1: "Wherefore seeing we also are
compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses."
Heb. 10:33: "Partly, whilst ye were made a
gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions; and partly, whilst ye became
companions of them that were so used (or treated)."
Heb. 13:7-8,13: "Remember them which have
the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith
follow, considering the end of their conversation (or walk). Jesus Christ is
the sane yesterday, and to day, and for ever. . . . Let us go forth therefore
unto him without (or outside) the camp, bearing his reproach."
1 Cor. 11:1: "Be ye followers of me, even
as I also am of Christ."
Phil. 3:17: "Brethren, be followers
together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an example."
Phil. 4:9: "Those things, which ye have
both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do."
Song 1:8: "Go thy way forth by the
footsteps of the flock."
Jer. 6:16: "Stand ye in the ways, and see,
and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye
shall find rest for your souls."
And note the wording in term five, that
these contendings are "a noble example to be followed." Also, if we grant
the descending obligation of the Solemn League and Covenant, that very covenant
requires what this term requires. Head 6 says, "We shall also, according
to our places and callings, in this common cause of religion, liberty, and
peace of the kingdoms, assist and defend all those [whether those swearing the
covenant, or their posterity] that enter into this League and Covenant, in the
maintaining and pursuing thereof, etc."
F: Hold on -- something just occurred
to me. Are you saying that not only doctrine is a term of communion, but also
practice?
H: Exactly! You've caught on! As you
know, we require adherence to uninspired creeds because we must have not simply
a bare profession of the authority and truth of the Bible (which most heretics
would make), but adherence to the meaning of the Scriptures. This is the
setting forth of the truth abstractly, or principially. However, "faith
without works is dead" -- in a person, or in the moral person of the
church -- and so we also set forth the truth concretely, or practically. We can
see this twofold necessity -- principle and practice -- in II Timothy 3:16-17,
where the Scriptures are given to teach, and so forth, that "the man of
God may be throughly furnished unto all good works." So, the statement or
profession of the truth cannot be separated from the application or practice of
the truth. James 1:22: "Be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only,
deceiving your own selves." Otherwise, we'd be no different than the
devils: "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
also believe, and tremble."
Since the bond of fellowship in the
church is the truth, the bond of fellowship is the truth stated and the truth
applied; the truth professed and the truth lived; the truth doctrinally and the
truth practically. These two facets of the truth are wedded; let not man put
asunder what God has joined together. To hold to one without the other -- both
common errors in our time -- is not the Christian charity which promotes unity:
it is the lie of the evil one, dressed in the seductive clothing of
"Christian love and unity," which destroys true love and unity.
F: So let me get this straight. You
believe that the fourth and fifth terms are, in the practical realm, what the
second and third are in the doctrinal realm?
H: Yes. The second and third say,
"this is what the truth means;" the fourth and fifth say, "this
is what the truth looks like when lived out." The Bible is the alone
supreme and infallible standard, as term one says. It alone is incapable of error
(infallible) and therefore has ultimate, unquestionable authority. The other
terms are subordinate standards, founded upon and agreeable to the Bible. These
other standards have authority, but not an ultimate authority. Their authority
is like that of a parent or lawful magistrate: not absolute, but derived from
God. Nevertheless, just because authority is derived does not mean that it's
not real authority, any more than a parent's authority isn't real just because
it's not absolute, but is derived.
Consider the following quote from the
Reformed Presbytery's Explanation and Defence of the Terms of Communion (pp. 188-189):
Let it also be carefully observed here, that,
with regard to the Deeds of which we speak [in the fifth term of communion], we
wish to be understood in the same sense as before, concerning the Confession of
Faith and the Covenants. It is only after diligently perusing, pondering, and
comparing these testimonies with the Word of God, and after finding them to be
founded upon, and agreeable unto it, that we mean to rank them among the
subordinate standards of our church. But, as two, or more, cannot consistently
walk together in church-fellowship, unless they be agreed in sentiment
concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church, and
concerning the proper way of glorifying God upon earth, we reckon it
exceedingly requisite that this agreement should be properly ascertained. For
that important purpose, amongst others, these testimonies seem to be very much
calculated. And it is only to such of them as truly deserve the characteristic
epithets of SCRIPTURAL AND FAITHFUL, that we require the assent of our church
members.
I wish people like your friend would
not make such outrageous and uncharitable accusations, especially before
considering the biblical warrant just mentioned, and the clear explanations
given by those holding these positions. We would all do well to be more swift
to hear and slow to speak (James 1:19).
F: So why --
H: I'm sorry, may I interject? I just
remembered one more thing about uninspired history as a term of communion.
F: Sure, go ahead.
H: Thanks. We mentioned that honoring
our parents is a term of communion. How about honoring and submitting to other
lawful authorities, in church and state?
F: Sure, of course. Again, these are
explicit commands. . . . And again, the Bible doesn't tell us explicitly who,
specifically, these lawful authorities are. . .
H: Right! Now, does God command
submission to all authorities in church and state?
F: Sure.
H: All authorities? Anyone and everyone
who simply wears the title, gives commands, and wields some sort of power?
F: Oh, no, of course not. I wasn't
thinking there. We can only submit for conscience sake to authority which bears
his seal of approval: that is, to lawful authority. God forbids submission out
of conscience to unlawful authority, though you might submit for other reasons,
as you would to a highway robber who will beat you up or kill you if you don't
do what he says.
H: So God clearly distinguishes not
only between lawful and unlawful commands, but between lawful and unlawful
authorities?
F: Sure; that's why the Confession says
"any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it" in Chapter 20,
Section 4. They clearly distinguished between the two. If not, the conjunction
"or" makes no sense at all here.
H: That's very perceptive. Recognizing
this, how do we distinguish between lawful and unlawful authority, say, in the
church? After all, on the one hand God says we're opposing him and courting his
wrath if we deny lawful authority, and on the other he says that we're putting
ourselves in great danger and making a mockery of his holy ordinance of
authority if we own and submit (for conscience sake) to unlawful authority.
F: By the test of Scripture, I guess.
H: What are the Scripture tests?
F: Umm. . . they have to use their
authority for edification and not for destruction; they have to be the pillar
and support of the truth. . .
H: The marks of the church, right?
F: Oh yeah, right. The pure preaching
of the word, the right administration of the sacraments, and biblical church
discipline.
H: Can these things be ascertained of a
church apart from the light of uninspired history?
F: What do you mean?
H: We said that the church is a moral
person, one person throughout all the ages. As such, she was a child during the
Old Testament times, came of age at the coming of Christ (Galatians 3:23-25;
4:3), and continues to grow and mature -- Eph. 4:11-16. In that corporate
sanctification, she must, like individual believers, live up to the level of
growth God has granted her thus far -- Philippians 3:16. As you mentioned,
lawful authority is only for edification, not destruction (2 Corinthians 10:8;
13:8,10). If the 'leaders' in the church are promoting -- even unwittingly and
from good intentions -- corporate backsliding from previous attainments in her
sanctification, are they using their alleged authority for edification, or for
destruction? For the truth, or against it?
F: Against it; for the destruction of
Jerusalem, not her building up. . .
H: So, in other words, authority can
only be lawful if it is holding and seeking to build upon the highest level of
corporate sanctification granted to her. The marks of the church must be
applied -- not in a vacuum -- but in history. And how do we know what these
attainments in sanctification are?
F: By uninspired historical record or
testimony.
H: Exactly. If you think about it, it
can't be any other way. Can you or I know whether we're obeying God's
commandment to live up to the level of sanctification he's given us as
individuals apart from self-evaluation?
F: Well, no. We are commanded to
examine ourselves.
H: Is this examination historical?
F: It would have to be, because in the
nature of the case sanctification is measuring where we were at some point and
comparing it with where we are today. In other words, we are charting our
historical progress, our growth in grace.
H: So as individuals we must rely on
uninspired historical testimony, even if only our own, in order to obey the
explicit command in Philippians 3:16.
F: Yes, I agree. So, as far as terms of
communion: if obeying our leaders in the Lord is a term of communion, and
refusing to obey unlawful leaders is, too; and if this can only be done by
consulting uninspired history; then uninspired history has to be a term of
communion.
H: You've got it.
F: A couple of other questions -- Do
you believe these terms of communion will ever be improved upon? My friend also
said 'Steelites' are Anabaptistic perfectionists, and 'reformed Finneyites'.
H: The terms themselves answer this
question. Term 3 says the form of government and directory for worship adopted
by the Church of Scotland in the second reformation are "the most perfect
model as yet attained." Also, listen to Mr. Steele himself (from his
printed communications with James M. Willson, editor of the Covenanter magazine, published with his Notes On the
Apocalypse; p. 412):
But that their [the witnesses'] testimony may
have due efficacy, the witnesses must be united in visible fellowship, and also
in the matter of their testimony. They must all speak that they do know, and
testify that they have seen -- "all speak the same thing, that there be no
divisions (schisms) among them; but that they be perfectly joined together in
the same mind, and in the same judgment," 1 Cor. 1:10. Not that they
"must agree in every object of thought," -- no, that is impossible;
but, as already said, in the matter of their testimony. After agreement in
this, there will still be ample scope for diversity of opinion, and for
legitimate exercise of charity in mutual forbearance.
Note that last sentence in particular.
Does that sound like perfectionism? How about his statement that it is
impossible to agree in every object of thought?
Notice term 4, likewise. It says that
the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant are "an
exemplification" of the ordinance of covenanting, not "the
exemplification". We don't think we've "arrived", but we do seek
to be faithful to Christ's commands, such as Proverbs 22:28 -- "Remove not
the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." -- and Revelation 2:25
-- "But that which ye have already hold fast till I come."
What was your other question?
F: Why do you have the 6th term --
"practically adorning the doctrine of God our Savior by walking in all his
commandments and ordinances blamelessly" -- if terms 4 and 5 deal already
with the practical part of the truth?
H: Because terms 4 and 5 have to do
with the practical part of the truth respecting the church as a moral person --
ecclesiastical piety, if you will. Term 6 stresses the need for personal or
individual piety.
Before you go, I thought you'd be
edified by one last quote from Steele's, The Two Witnesses (pages 372 and 382 in Notes On the Apocalypse), which I think sums up well what we stand for
and what all churches should stand for, since Christ calls his church to bear
faithful witness:
Their work consisting, as we have seen, in
contending for all divine truth, in its practical bearing upon individual and
social man; and in opposing whatsoever is contrary to sound doctrine and the
power of godliness. . . .There is not a doctrine of grace which is not opposed,
which is not supplanted by the false prophet. To state these doctrines, to
place them before the eye in logical connections, to apply them to saints and
sinners; to defend them and their just application when denied in theory and
disregarded in practice: to exemplify their sanctifying power in the hand of
the Spirit of Christ: this, this is the work of the witnesses.
Most of the books listed below are also
available in printed format or on CD at http://www.swrb.com.
Westminster Confession of Faith Super Sale
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/westminster-confession.htm
Puritan Bookshelf CD Series Super Sale
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm
Covenanter Sale
http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/covenanter-books.htm
Doctrinal Integrity: The Utility and Importance of
Creeds and Confessions and Adherence to Our Doctrinal Standards by Samuel Miller
More FREE books: http://www.reformedpresbytery.org/books/index.html
The Covenanted Reformation Defended Against
Contemporary Schismatics: A
Response and Antidote Primarily to the Neopresbyterian Malignancy and
Misrepresentations, and the Manufactured "Steelite" Controversy,
Found in Richard Bacon's A Defense Departed; With a Refutation of Bacon's
Independency, Popery, Arminianism, Anabaptism and Various Other Heresies
(Including an Exhibition of His Opposition to Scripture and the Covenanted Reformation,
in General; and His Opposition to John Calvin, John Knox, the General Assembly
of the Church of Scotland [Especially 1638-1649], Samuel Rutherford, George
Gillespie, the Testimony of the Covenanter Martyrs, the Reformed Presbytery,
the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton and a Host of Other Prominent Reformers
from Past Generations, in Particular) -- With Copious Notes on Mr. Bacon's
Backsliding and His Blackening of the Blue Banner; as Well as Various Replies
to Other Modern Malignants by Greg Barrow (Greg Price, Reg Barrow, Larry
Birger, et al.) (Though set in the context of a debate with one
individual, this book addresses a number of specific problems which plague the
Presbyterian and Reformed churches of our day in general. "It conclusively
and irrefutably demonstrates that those churches which today call themselves
Presbyterian [and even many which claim a more general Reformed heritage] have
grievously departed from the Scriptural standards and principles of the
previous Spirit led Reformations [of the 16th and 17th centuries]. This will
become progressively [and painfully] clear as the reader witnesses evidence
upon evidence of defection from biblically based Reformation attainments (Phil.
3:16) -- and the burying and/or removing of the ancient Reformation landmarks.
Ultimately, when the testimony and evidence [presented in this book] is weighed
in light of Scriptural verities, it is entirely safe to say that the original
Reformers would not only have sought negative ecclesiastical sanctions against
our modern pseudo-Reformers, but in many cases negative civil sanctions as
well," writes Reg Barrow in the "Publisher's Preface." This
book, of over 300 [8.5" X 11"] pages, is also offered as a cerlox
bound photocopy [$14.98 US funds] or a Hardcover photocopy [$25.00 US funds].
It is also free on most of the CDs in
both the REFORMATION BOOKSHELF CD set [30 CDs, http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/reformation-bookshelf-CDs.htm ] and the PURITAN
BOOKSHELF CD set [32 CDs, http://www.swrb.com/Puritan/puritan-bookshelf-CDs.htm ])
Free on the web at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/CovRefGB.htm
Saul in the Cave of Adullam: A Testimony Against
the Fashionable Sub-Calvinism of Doug Wilson (Editor of Credenda/Agenda Magazine); and, for Classical Protestantism and
the Attainments of the Second Reformation by Reg Barrow
Doug Wilson and others at Credenda/Agenda used their magazine to publicly attack and slander
Reg Barrow (President of Still Waters Revival Books) in a column that they call
the "Cave of Adullam." This invective was Credenda's response to Barrow's comments on Knox Ring (where
Barrow noted that John Calvin would have excommunicated Jo hn Frame for the
apostasy that he manifests in his new book on worship). Numerous private
attempts were unsuccessfully made (by Barrow and others) to call Wilson to
repentance for this slander. Ultimately, charges for violation of the ninth
commandment were brought (in accord with Matt. 18:15-17) against Wilson by
Barrow. This book recounts the sa lient points of the controversy (and the
Matthew 18 proceedings) between Wilson and Barrow -- in their actual email
debates! Also included is Barrow's demonstration of why Calvin would have
excommunicated Frame and Greg Price's Testimony Against The Unfounded Charges
of Anabaptism. These debates
are a classic example of the differences t hat exist today between
paleopresbyterians (Barrow) and neopresbyterians (Wilson). Wilson's charges against Barrow, of Anabaptism,
separatism, etc. are all refuted under a mountain of quotations from
Reformation source documents. Barrow's refutations of Wilson's spurious charges
bring to light many aspects of Reformation thought that have been lost or
forgotten in our day. Besides the initial controversy (over Frame and worship)
and the restoration process (set forth in Matthew 18:15-17), this book should
be of special interest to all of those who love the "old paths" of
truth -- trod by our forefathers in the Reformed faith -- for some of the most
pressing issues of our day (regarding the individual, church and state) are
addressed herein. Classic statements, cited by Barrow, not only exhibit the
wisdom which God granted the best Reformers of both the first and second
Reformations, but also specifically demonstrate how Wilson and many other
modern Protestants actually reject the Reformation at many points (all their
protests n ot withstanding). "And they that shall be of thee shall build
the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations;
and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to
dwell in" (Isa. 58:12). This item is also available as a bound photocopy
for $3.98 (US funds) and a Hardcover photocopy for $14.98 (US funds).
Free on the web at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Saul.htm
Paleopresbyterianism Versus Neopresbyterianism by Michael Wagner
Defines the major differences between
"paleo" or old Presbyterianism (the position held at the Westminster
Assembly, 1648) and "neo" or new (modern) Presbyterianism. Maintains
and proves that the two major differences are found in the form of subscription
(whether complete, as with the "paleo's," or loose [i.e. allowing for
scruples], as with the "neo's") to the Westminster standards and in
whether or not the Solemn League and Covenant is thought to be binding today (in
its moral equity). Wagner also demonstrates how the neopresbyterians have
turned away from the original Presbyterian position. The implications of this
introductory booklet are far reaching and revolutionary and could easil y shake
the prevalent neopresbyterian establishment (PCA, OPC, etc.) to its very core.
This item is also available as a bound photocopy for $2.39 (US funds)
Free on the web at: http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualnls/Paleo.htm
Terms of Communion: The Word of God
($3.96, 2 cassettes)
Explains and defends
the first term of communion, which is "An acknowledgement of the Old and
New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and
practice." Covers the attributes of Scripture, including the necessity,
inspiration, authority, sufficiency, perspicuity, perpetuity, etc. of the Word
of God. Also deals with principles of interpretation (hermeneutics) and how we
know that God's Word is His Word, and thus can be trusted as the absolute,
inerrant, infallible and inspired truth. Touches on higher criticism and the
debate over bible version, upholding the Textus Receptus (i.e. the ecclesiastical
or received text) and the King James Version. A fine defense of Sola Scriptura
which also touches on how "extra-biblical" terms of communion are not
only required by Scripture itself, but are an inescapable necessity. Price is
careful to point out the difference between the primary, infallible standard of
Scripture and those uninspired subordinate standards, which nevertheless bind
the conscience whenever they say the same thing as Scripture. A great
introduction to God's Word that comes with our highest recommendation. "I
will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness
and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"
(Ps. 138:2).
Terms of Communion: The Westminster
Standards ($9.90, 5 cassettes)
Explains and defends
the second term of communion, which is "That the whole doctrine of the
Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, are
agreeable unto, and founded upon the Scriptures." Price not only explains
why we need creeds and confession (answering the question: Isn't the Scripture
sufficient?), but he shows how everyone has a creed and how such statements of
faith are actually inescapable -- for as soon as one says what he believes the
Bible means, has has (be definition) put forth his creed ("credo" in
Latin means "to believe"). There is no neutrality! He also gives a
summary of the Westminster standards and the history of this august assembly,
demonstrating why these standards are agreeable to the word of God. After
showing how faithful creeds and confessions (i.e. human testimony) have brought
untold blessings to the church he gives a history of the Westminster Assembly
(setting the context for the study of the Standards themselves). The doctrines
contained in the confessional standards are then summarized. Price also exposes
and rebukes much false teaching and false practice (contrary to the standards)
using the specific names associated with each heresy refuted. The following
doctrines are covered: sola Scripture (refuting popery, neo-orthodoxy,
liberalism and the charismatics), the doctrine of God (refuting Unitarianism,
Oneness theology [Modalism, Sabellianism], and tritheism), God's decrees and
predestination (refuting Arminianism, fatalism [Islam]), creation (refuting
Evolutionism, Pantheism and New Age and Eastern mysticism), the covenant of
works, Providence (against "luck" and "accidents"), the
fall of man (refuting Arminianism and Pelagianism), the covenant of grace
(refuting dispensationalism), Christ our mediator (refuting Arianism [JW's],
Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism [which led to the
transubstantiation and consubstantiation heresies], the free offer of the
gospel, effectual calling (contra Arminianism), justification by faith alone through
Christ alone (contra Rome and the Arminians), sanctification and good works
(condemning antinomianism and legalism), assurance of faith, perseverance of
the saints, the law of God, Christian liberty (against pretended liberty of
conscience and the imposition of legalistic standards outside of the law of
God), worship (against the anti-regulativists and promoters of will-worship),
the regulative principle (condemning Arminianism in worship), the Sabbath
(taking the high Scottish view), lawful oaths and vows (condemning covenant
breaking [churches and nations included], perjury, etc.), the civil magistrate
(against pluralism, false toleration, Erastianism, and for biblical
establishments), marriage, the church (contra popery, prelacy and independency [all
of which are forms of sectarianism]), and the resurrection and general
judgement.
Terms of Communion: Presbyterian
Worship and Government ($3.96, 2 cassettes)
Explains and defends
the third term of communion, which is "That Presbyterial Church Government
and manner of worship are alone of divine right and unalterable; and that the
most perfect model of these as yet attained, is exhibited in the Form of
Government and Directory for Worship, adopted by the Church of Scotland in the
Second Reformation." "To many readers, the subject of church
government will not seem terribly exciting. Judging from the lack of
contemporary literature on the topic, one might conclude that church polity is
not very important. Yet, if the truth were known, many of the practical
problems facing the church are the result of an abandonment of scriptural
church polity. The church is not a mere social club. The church is the kingdom
of Christ (Col. 1:13), subject to his rule. In the Bible, the Lord has
established an ecclesiastical government by which his people are to be ruled.
Just as Christ has instituted civil government to ensure civil order, so he has
established ecclesiastical government to preserve order in the church (1 Cor.
14:33). A man is not free to dispense with the church's government anymore than
he is at liberty to disregard the (lawful--RB) civil authorities. We do not
contend that the divine order for church government extends to every detail.
Obviously, the Lord did not mandate how many times the elders of the church
must meet each month; nor did he prescribe any particular attire for them to
wear while performing their official duties. Such incidentals are adapted to
the needs and exigencies of the time and place; according to the general rules
of the word, which are always to be observed. Nevertheless, the scriptures do
provide an overall plan of government which the church must follow if she is to
remain faithful to her Lord. Therefore, it is important to examine biblical
principles of church polity," writes Kevin Reed in his Biblical Church
Government. Much the same could be
said regarding worship. These tapes are an excellent introductory explanation
of the fundamentals of Divine Right Presbyterian church government and Divine
Right Presbyterian worship. They are jam-packed with Scripture, history and
sound reasoning and should be very helpful to all those seeking the Lord's will
concerning these two important subjects. Price distinguishes between the
elements and circumstances of worship (contra John Frame's heretical
innovations, wherein he rejects these distinctions), while the vital issues of
unity and uniformity, separation from false worship and false man-made church
governments are not forgotten. All this is set in the context of faithfully
approaching the Lord's table. "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye
remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to
you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
Terms of Communion: Covenants and
Covenanting ($13.86, 7 cassettes)
Explains and defends
the fourth term of communion, which is "That public, social covenanting is
an ordinance of God, obligatory on churches and nations under the New
Testament; that the National Covenant and the Solemn League are an
exemplification of this divine institution; and that these Deeds are of
continued obligation upon the moral person; and in consistency with this, that
the Renovation of these Covenants at Auchensaugh, Scotland, 1712 was agreeable
to the word of God." Includes the studies offered separately on the
National Covenant (2 tapes), the Solemn League and Covenant (1 tape), the
Auchensaugh Renovation (2 tapes), as well as two introductory lectures (only
available in this set) on the biblical principles related to the ordinance of
covenanting, the descending obligation of lawful covenants, objections against
covenanting, etc. Roberts, in his Reformed Presbyterian Catechism ($8.99), catches the spirit of this tape set in
the following question and answer: "Q. May we not indulge the hope, that,
in the goodness of our covenant God, and by the promised outpouring of his Holy
Spirit, 'the kingdoms of the world' at large, and the British empire in
particular, will dedicate themselves to God in a covenant not to be forgotten -
animated by the example of our covenant fathers exhibited in these memorable
deeds? A. Yes. We have the most cheering grounds for this blessed hope; for it
is written, that the nations at large in the spirit of devoted loyalty, shall
cry -- 'Come and let us join ourselves to the Lord in a perpetual covenant that
shall not be forgotten': and it cannot be well doubted, that the death-cry of
the martyred Guthrie has been heard on high, and shall be verified -- 'The
covenants, the covenants, shall yet be Scotland's (and the world's -- RB)
reviving'" (p. 151). A thoroughly amazing set of tapes -- among our best!
Terms of Communion: The Martyrs and
Historic Testimony ($3.96, 2 cassettes)
Explains and defends
the fifth term of communion, which is "An approbation of the faithful
contendings of the martyrs of Jesus, especially in Scotland, against Paganism,
Popery, Prelacy, Malignancy and Sectarianism; immoral civil governments;
Erastian tolerations and persecutions which flow from them; and of the Judicial
Testimony emitted by the Reformed Presbytery in North Britain, 1761 (i.e. The
Act, Declaration and Testimony for the Whole of Our Covenanted Reformation--RB) with supplements from the Reformed
Presbyterian Church; as containing a noble example to be followed, in
contending for all divine truth, and in testifying against all corruptions
embodied in the constitutions of either churches or states." Price
demonstrates how and why uninspired historical testimony must be a term of
communion. A number of the same arguments apply to this question (of fencing
the Lord's table based on uninspired historical testimony), as apply to fencing
the table based on biblically accurate creeds and confessions -- so those that
understand biblical creedalism (and close communion) should have no problem
with this aspect of Reformation thought. Reformation views are also
differentiated from Romish views of history, church authority, etc., as they
come to bear on this point. At one of the most interesting points of this
study, Price also proves how one cannot even keep the inspired commandments of
God without the use of uninspired history (using the fifth and ninth
commandments as examples). History is here set on its biblical foundations.
Testimony is also well dealt with. Testimony is defined as "That record
which a witness gives (in a court) in defense of the truth and in opposition to
error." Faithful biblical testimony is shown, by various examples from
inspired and uninspired history, to bring the fury of the enemy. This is where
the Reformation theological rubber meets the road of experimental Christianity
and disinterested self-sacrifice (often resulting in suffering and persecution
as the antichristian beast [ecclesiastical and civil] is stirred from his
slumber by the barbs of faithful Christian witnesses as they testify to the
truth and against "all corruptions embodied in the constitutions of either
churches or states" -- thus the long list of Christian martyrs throughout
history).
Terms of Communion: The Practice of
Truth ($1.98, cassette)
Explains and defends
the sixth term of communion, which is "Practically adorning the doctrine
of God our Savior by walking in all His commandments and ordinances
blamelessly." Contains an excellent and encouraging overview of the
biblical doctrine of sanctification (individual and corporate). Explains the
role of the law of God in the life of the believer, refuting legalism,
antinomianism and the perfectionism of the Wesleyans, Anabaptists and Roman
Catholics. Distinguishes between heresies and damnable heresies, giving
examples of each (including Pelagianism, Arminianism, Dispensationalism, etc.).
Explains how the "face of God" is seen in His ordinances, how to use
these to grow in grace and what is meant by "blameless" in the sixth
term of communion above. In short, this one of the best tapes you will find
giving an overview of the biblical doctrine of sanctification.
END GREG PRICE CASSETTES
A Free Disputation Against Pretended
Liberty of Conscience (1649 edition.)
Rutherford's Free Disputation, though scarce, is still one of his most important
works -- with maybe only a few copies of the actual book left in existence.
Though Rutherford is affectionately remembered in our day for his Letters, or for laying the foundations of constitutional
government (against the divine right of kings) in his u nsurpassed Lex Rex, his Free Disputation should not be overlooked -- for it contains the
same searing insights as Lex Rex.
In fact, this book should probably be known as Rutherford's "politically
incorrect" companion volume to Lex Rex. A sort of sequel aimed at driving pluralists and
antinomians insane. Written against "the Belgick Arminians, Socinians, and
other Authors contending for lawlesse liberty, or licentious Tolerations of
Sects and Heresies," Rutherford explains the undiluted Biblical solution
to moral relativism, especially as it is expressed in ecclesiastical and civil
pluralism! (Corporate pluralism being a violation of the first commandment and
an affront to the holy God of Scripture). He also deals with conscience,
toleration, penology (punishment), and the judicial laws, as related to both
the civil and ecclesiastical realms. Excellent sections are also included which
address questions related to determining the fundamentals of religion, how
covenants bind us, the perpetual obligation of social covenants (with direct
application to the Solemn League and Covenant and the covenant-breaking of
Cromwell and his sectarian supporters), whether the punishing of seducing
teachers be persecution of conscience, and much more. Walker adds these
comments and context regarding Rutherford's Free Disputation, "The principle of toleration was beginning
to be broached in England, and in a modified shape to find acceptance there.
Samuel Rutherford was alarmed, or rather, I should say, he was horrified, for
he neither feared the face of man or argument. He rushed to the rescue of the
good old view... It is not so easy to find a theoretical ground for toleration;
and Rutherford has ma ny plausible things to say against it. With the most
perfect confidence, he argues that it is alike against Scripture and common
sense that you should have two religions side by side. It is outrageous
ecclesiastically, it is sinful civilly. He does not, however, take what I call
the essentially persecuting ground. He does not hold that the magistr ate is to
punish religion as religion. Nay, he strongly maintains that the civil
magistrate never aims at the conscience. The magistrate, he urges, does not
send anyone, whether a heretic (who is a soul murderer--RB) or a murderer, to
the scaffold with the idea of producing conversion or other spiritual result,
but to strengthen the foundations of civil order. But if he gives so much power
to the king, he is no lover of despotism withal: the king himself must be under
law. To vindicate this great doctrine is the object of another book, the
celebrated Lex Rex; of which it
has been said by one competent to judge, that it first clearly developed the
constitutionalism which all men now accept" (Theology and
Theologians..., pp. 11-12). In our
day Francis Schaeffer, and numerous others, have critiqued many of the problems
found in modern society, but most have spent little time developing explicitly
Biblical solutions -- especially regarding the theoretical foundations that
Rutherford addresses here. Rutherford's Free Di sputation provides a detailed blueprint for laying the
foundations that must be laid before any lasting, God-honoring solutions will
be found. Furthermore, Rutherford and his writings were the enemies of all
governments not covenanted with Christ. This book will give you a very clear
picture as to why "the beast" (civil and ecclesiastical) has reserved
his special hatred for such teaching. As Samuel Wylie noted "[t]he
dispute, then, will not turn upon the point whether religion should be civilly
established... but it is concerning what religion ought to be civilly
established and protected, -- whether the religion of Jesus alone should be
countenanced by civil authority, or every blasp hemous, heretical, and
idolatrous abomination which the subtle malignity of the old serpent and a
heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, can frame and devise,
should be put on an equal footing therewith" (Two Sons of Oil: or, The
Faithful Witness For Magistracy and Ministry Upon a Scriptural Basis, softcover). Can our gene ration swallow
Rutherford's hard, anti-pluralistic, Covenanter medicine, poured forth from the
bottle of the first commandment, without choking on their carnal dreams of a
free and righteous society divorced from God (and His absolute claims upon
everyone and everything)? Not without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit --
that is for sure! In su mmary, this book answers all the hardest questions
theonomists (and their wisest and best opponents) have been asking for the last
20-30 years (and these answers are much more in depth than any we have seen in
the last couple of millennia [less about a century to account for the
apostles]). As the reader will discover, Rutherford was a wealthy man when it
came to wisdom (and much advanced theologically), and those who take the time
to gaze into the King's treasure house, as exhibited in this book, will find
that they are greatly rewarded. Furthermore, because of its uncompromising
stand upon the Word of God, this book is sure to be unpopular among a wicked
and adulterous generation. Howeve r, on the other hand, it is sure to be
popular among the covenanted servants of King Jesus! This is one of the best
books (in the top five anyway) for advanced study of the Christian faith. We
have now obtained an easy-to-read, amazingly clear copy of this very rare, old
treasure. Great price too, considering that a copy of the 1649 edition, conta
ining this quality of print, would likely cost upwards of $1000 on the rare
book market -- though it is unlikely you would ever see a copy for sale!
The Ordinance of Covenanting (1843)
This book is considered by many as the
classic work on covenanting. "The theology of Covenanting is here unfolded
with a richness of scriptural research and a maturity of intellectual strength
which would have made the grey eye of Peden glisten with delight. The treatise
is a valuable addition to that solid theological literature of which the Refo
rmed Presbyterian Church has produced repeated and enduring specimens, and
stamps Mr. Cunningham as a distinguished disciple of the thoughtful and
scriptural school of Mason and the Symingtons" (Presby Rev., (1844) as cited in The Treasury of the Scottish
Covenant by Johnston). The author
himself notes that "Prayer and the offering o f praise are universally
admitted to be duties of religion. The Scriptures announce a place among these
for the exercise of solemn Covenanting... What the word of God unfolds
concerning it, is addressed to the most resolute consideration of all, and is
capable of engaging the most extensive and prolonged investigation. And yet,
though none have fo und this subject, like all God's judgements, else than a
great deep, still in meditating upon it, the ignorant have been brought to true
knowledge, and the wise have increased in wisdom. 'The secret of the Lord is
with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant' (Ps. 25:14)...
Mutual federal engagements, concerning things religious and civil, whether
entered into merely by simple promise, or confirmed by the solemn oath, have
been made from the highest antiquity to the present. The hostility to some such
engagements, and also the proud disregard for their obligation, which have been
evinced by some in all ages, demand a most careful examination into their
nature and design... F urnished with the key of Scripture, approaching the
subject, we are enabled to open the mysteries in which ignorance and prejudice
had shut it up; and equipped with the armour of light shooting forth its
heavenly radiance, in safety to ourselves we assail the darkness thrown around
it, and behold the instant flight of the spirits of error which th at darkness
contains. Standing alone in beauteous attractions descended from heaven upon
it, this service beckons us to approach it, and engages to connect extensive
good with a proper attention to its claims. The observance, under various
phases, is described in Scripture as an undisputed and indisputable
reality." In this book Cunningham exhaust ively covers the subject of
covenanting in over 400 pages. He deals with the manner, duty and nature of
covenanting (including personal and social covenanting), the obligation
covenanting confers, how covenanting is provided for in the everlasting
covenant, how it is adapted to the moral constitution of man and how it is
according to the purposes of God. Numerous Divine examples are cited from
Scripture and covenanting is shown to be one of the great privileges of the
Christian life. An interesting chapter covers "Covenanting Enforced By the
Grant of Covenant Signs and Seals;" which touches on circumcision,
baptism, the Sabbath, the Priesthood, the new heart and the person and work of
the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, this book demonstrates how God's
approbation rested upon Covenanters in formers ages, how covenanting is
predicted in prophecy, how it is recommended by the practice of the New
Testament Church and at what seasons it is appropriate. The appendices touch on
the relationship of covenanting to immoral and unscriptural civil governments,
the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, the British constitution and the
apostasy of the Revolution settlement. Additionally, Cunningham acknowledges
that the true church is "bound by the obligations of the Church of God is
past times" and is still obligated to pay what it has vowed to the Lord in those magnificent att ainments of the second
Reformation (the epitome of these attainments being embodied in the Solemn
League and Covenant and the Westminster Standards). If you are interested in
the ordinance of covenanting this is the most extensive treatment you will find
in one book. It is a gold mine of Scriptural references and should be read at
least once by ev eryone who calls upon the name of Christ.
Unity and Uniformity in the Church
(1881)
This item lays out the case for unity among
churches, proving its assertions from: (1.) throughout Scripture; (2.) from our
Lord's declaring His will both in precept and prayer; (3.) from apostolic
practise; and (4.) from the covenanted Reformation's "Solemn League and
Covenant" which lead to the production of the Westminster standards.
Houston no tes that in the Apostolic church "the government of the church
was one and common wherever churches were planted. It was Presbyterian, and
neither Prelatic, a system of monarchial despotism, nor Congregational, a
system of popular democracy." This biblical and Presbyterian uniformity
was considered the apostolic, visible and doctrinal manifestatio n of the
scriptural injunction to "one Lord, one faith, (and) one baptism."
Houston also points out that "the only true and safe way of union is based
on the platform of Scriptural uniformity; while that which is framed on
allowing diversity in doctrine, and differences in government and worship, is a
mere human contrivance, and its effect is to s anction and perpetuate divisions
(which is to sanction schism under the false pretence of unity--RB), and to mar
the prospect of an ultimate happy union in the church of Christ." Biblical
union and uniformity is shown to be based on "agreement in doctrine,
worship, discipline, and government." Moreover, the author contends that,
"this is to be con stantly sought after by men united in mind and heart,
pledged to God and to one another; it is to be externally manifested, and to be
diligently labored for, that it may be generally and universally prevalent. It
is never to be viewed as impracticable. This was the main design of the
convocation of the Westminster Assembly." The eschatological asp ect of
visible unity is also noticed, shedding valuable light on such postmillennial
strongholds as, "The watchmen on the walls of Zion shall see eye to eye,
they shall lift up the voice together, and together shall they sing" (Isa.
52:8) and "The Lord shall be King over all the earth; in that day there
shall be one Lord, and His name one" (Zech. 14:9). This book is full of
faithful encouragement and is one of the best introductions to this topic we
have seen.
The Millennium: Peace, Prosperity and
National Covenanting (1879)
This is the Reformation (especially second
Reformation) view of postmillennialism as set forth and explained in terms of
the national blessings and gospel purity that will be present when the
millennium arrives. Some items discussed include: the visible state of unity in
the church during the millennium; national covenanting; how kings will be
"nu rsing fathers" (Isa. 49:23) to the church during this blessed
period of history; and how "all nations shall serve him" (Ps 72:11) in
that day (and there are no nations in heaven -- so this must be speaking of
what will take place on earth before Christ returns, contrary to
amillennialism)! In short, the millennium will be marked by visible civil a nd
ecclesiastical obedience to Christ as King! This is exactly the opposite of the
situation that we are presently experiencing -- for we live in the days of the
great apostasy (2 Thes. 2:3). The church (visible) is in disarray and has
grievously backslidden from her previous Reformation attainments. No nation is
covenanted with Christ (as a natio n), but instead, "The kings of the
earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD,
and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away
their cords from us" (Ps. 2:2-3). The nations and many churches despise
Christ's royal law and He now "vex(es) them in his sore displeasure"
-- but when t he millennial glory arrives the river of His Spirit will fill the
earth (Ezek 47:1-12) and His high priestly prayer will be answered (John 17:21:
"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."). This is a greatly
encouraging introduct ion to this topic and the best short treatment of this
subject that we offer! Excerpted from the Original Covenanter and Contending
Witness magazine (volumes 2:4-6).
The Reformed Presbyterian Catechism
(1853)
A manual of instruction, drawing from such
notable authors as William Symington and J.R. Willson, presenting
"arguments and facts confirming and illustrating the 'Distinctive
Principles'" of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Chapters deal with:
"Christ's Mediatorial Dominion in general;" Christ's exclusive
Headship over the Church;" "The Supreme a nd Ultimate Authority of
the Word of God in the Church;" Civil Government, the Moral Ordinance of
God;" Christ's Headship over the Nations;" "The Subjection of
the Nations to God and to Christ;" The Word, or Revealed Will of God, the
Supreme Law in the State;" "The Duty of Nations, in their National
Capacity, to acknowledge and support the True Re ligion:" "The
Spiritual Independence of the Church of Christ:" "The Right and Duty
of Dissent from an immoral Constitution of Civil Government;" "The
Duty of Covenanting, and the Permanent Obligations of Religious
Covenants;" "The Application of these Principles to the Governments,
where Reformed Presbyterians reside, in the form of a Practical Te
stimony;" and finally "Application of the Testimony to the British
Empire." A most important book, as we approach (possibly) the end of the
great apostasy and will be in need of preparing for the dawning of the glorious
millennial blessings to come; the days prophesied in which the church
"shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck t he breast of
kings" (Isa. 60:16).
Act, Declaration, And Testimony, For
The Whole Of The Covenanted Reformation, As Attained To, And Established In,
Britain and Ireland; Particularly Betwixt The Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive.
As, Also, Against All The Steps Of Defection From Said Reformation, Whether In
Former Or Later Times, Since The Overthrow Of That Glorious Work, Down To T his
Present Day (1876)
Upholds the original work of the Westminster
Assembly and testifies to the abiding worth and truth formulated in the
Westminster family of documents. Upholds and defends the crown rights of King
Jesus in church and state, denouncing those who would remove the crown from
Christ's head by denying His right to rule (by His law) in both the civil and
ecclesiastical spheres. Testifies to the received doctrine, government,
worship, and discipline of the Church of Scotland in her purest (reforming)
periods. Applies God's Word to the Church's corporate attainments "with a
judicial approbation of the earnest contendings and attainments of the
faithful, and a strong and pointed judicial condemnation of error and the
promoters thereof" (The Original Covenanter and Contending Witness, Dec.
17/93, p. 558. Write for a sample of this highly recommended publication at:
P.O. Box 131, Pottstown, PA, 19464, USA). Shows the church's great historical
victories (such as the National and Solemn League and Covenant, leading to the
Westminster Assembly) a nd exposes her enemies actions (e.g. the Prelacy of
Laud; the Independency, sectarianism, covenant breaking and ungodly toleration
set forth by the likes of Cromwell [and the Independents that conspired with
him]; the Erastianism and civil sectarianism of William of Orange, etc.). It is
not likely that you will find a more consistent working out o f the principles
of Calvinism anywhere. Deals with the most important matters relating to the
individual, the family, the church and the state. Sets forth a faithful
historical testimony of God's dealings with men during some of the most
important days of church history. A basic text that should be mastered by all
Christians.
Still Waters Revival Books
(Reformation
resources at great discounts!)
Email: swrb AT swrb.com
Home page at: http://www.swrb.com
Separation, Unity, Uniformity, etc. - Church Government - Creeds, Confessions and Covenants - Lord's Supper (Communion)