Ad Gloriam Dei

Calvin on the Christian Life

2011-06-21T22:51:00.005+01:00

Simply brilliant. Have been reading Book 3 Chapter 7 of Calvin's Institutes. You must read at least the first two sections. See here. Battle's translation is better if you have it.

So much that is flawed with Christians is self-centredness, pride and seeking their own way of doing things, whether in the Church or in their personal and family lives. Calvin slays these pernicious weeds!

Oh that Christians were utterly God-centred, but they too frequently seek their own way. We are not our own, Calvin says again and again, and he repeats again and again we are God's, we are God's.

What one of us does not need to be constantly reminded and constantly fighting for utter devotion to God and His will, and dying to oneself in every area of our living?

Abba: God's Fatherly Love

2011-06-19T16:22:00.005+01:00

This is from a discussion I had with some brethren that I thought might be helpful:

We have an intimate bond with our adoptive Father which is precious and wonderful, and we need to live in the light of it.

One emphasis in Calvin's Institutes which I found helpful was the importance of believing in God's fatherly love:

'By piety I mean that union of reverence and love to God which the knowledge of his benefits inspires. For, until men feel that they owe everything to God, that they are cherished by his paternal care, and that he is the author of all their blessings, so that nought is to be looked for away from him, they will never submit to him in voluntary obedience; nay, unless they place their entire happiness in him, they will never yield up their whole selves to him in truth and sincerity.' (Institutes Book 1 Ch. 2 Sect. 1)

This is not to the exclusion of a godly fear. God is not our "buddy", nor do I believe a father should be. My children love me greatly and like to hug me, but they still fear me, without being in terror of me. Thus in fallibly seeking to be a Biblical Father, my children understand how one can fear God and yet love Him as Father. As men, this is one of our God-given duties.

Do we believe in the depths of our being that God is a loving Father? Do we feel it? Do we trust Him? Do we believe at all times He is looking after us, providing for us and doing what is best for us?

Do we treat Him as a judge or even capricious? We are justified and our guilt is taken away. Is our faith in our justification and adoption and the spiritual and emotional impact this ought to have what it should be? We are once-justified in Christ. We are no longer under condemnation. When we sin, we seek the forgiveness of a Father who chastises us by His Spirit; we are not seeking clemency from our Judge, Jailer and Executioner. This is the whole point of Romans 8 after the inward struggle of Romans 7:

'For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.”... And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose...

'What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things? Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?...

'For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.'

Anglicanism and the Lord's Day

2010-08-22T11:39:00.011+01:00

The following is an extract from the Anglican Catechism as found in the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer (e.g. 1662, C of I 2004):

Question.You said, that your Godfathers and Godmothers did promise for you, that you should keep God's commandments. Tell me how many there be?
Answer. Ten.

Question. Which be they?
Answer.
...
IV. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath-day. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. In it thou shalt do no manner of work, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, thy cattle, and the stranger that is within thy gates.For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and hallowed it.
...

The more Evangelical Articles of Religion of the Church of Ireland (a.k.a. the Irish Articles of 1615) written principally by the greatest Irish Anglican, Archbishop Ussher of Armagh, which were replaced with the more ambiguous and less godly 39 Articles of the Church of England by the High-Church Laudians in 1635, and under which English and Scottish Presbyterians served in the Anglican Church of Ireland without Episcopal ordination, state the following:

56. The first day of the week, which is the Lord's day, is wholly to be dedicated unto the service of God: and therefore we are bound therein to rest from our common and daily business, and to bestow that leisure upon holy exercises, both public and private.

Calvin on the Sabbath Rest

2010-07-17T13:07:00.006+01:00

Calvin writes the following on Genesis 2:3 -

3. And God blessed the seventh day ... Thus we may be allowed to describe the day as blessed by him which he has embraced with love, to the end that the excellence and dignity of his works may therein be celebrated... God therefore sanctifies the seventh day, when he renders it illustrious, that by a special law it may be distinguished from the rest. Whence it also appears, that God always had respect to the welfare of men. I have said above, that six days were employed in the formation of the world; not that God, to whom one moment is as a thousand years, had need of this succession of time, but that he might engage us in the consideration of his works. He had the same end in view in the appointment of his own rest, for he set apart a day selected out of the remainder for this special use. Wherefore, that benediction is nothing else than a solemn consecration, by which God claims for himself the meditations and employments of men on the seventh day. This is, indeed, the proper business of the whole life, in which men should daily exercise themselves, to consider the infinite goodness, justice, power, and wisdom of God, in this magnificent theater of heaven and earth. But, lest men should prove less sedulously attentive to it than they ought, every seventh day has been especially selected for the purpose of supplying what was wanting in daily meditation. First, therefore, God rested; then he blessed this rest, that in all ages it might be held sacred among men: or he dedicated every seventh day to rest, that his own example might be a perpetual rule. The design of the institution must be always kept in memory: for God did not command men simply to keep holiday every seventh day, as if he delighted in their indolence; but rather that they, being released from all other business, might the more readily apply their minds to the Creator of the world. [TJD: I.e. it isn't about sleeping the day away.] Lastly, that is a sacred rest, which withdraws men from the impediments of the world, that it may dedicate them entirely to God. But now, since men are so backward to celebrate the justice, wisdom, and power of God, and to consider his benefits, that even when they are most faithfully admonished they still remain torpid, no slight stimulus is given by God’s own example, and the very precept itself is thereby rendered amiable. For God cannot either more gently allure, or more effectually incite us to obedience, than by inviting and exhorting us to the imitation of himself. Besides, we must know, that this is to be the common employment not of one age or people only, but of the whole human race. Afterwards, in the Law, a new precept concerning the Sabbath was given, which should be peculiar to the Jews, and but for a season; because it was a legal ceremony shadowing forth a spiritual rest, the truth of which was manifested in Christ. Therefore the Lord the more frequently testifies that he had given, in the Sabbath, a symbol of sanctification to his ancient people. Therefore when we hear that the Sabbath was abrogated by the coming of Christ, we must distinguish between what belongs to the perpetual government of human life, and what properly belongs to ancient figures, the use of which was abolished when the truth was fulfilled. Spiritual rest is the mortification of the flesh; so that the sons of God should no longer live unto themselves, or indulge their own inclination. So far as the Sabbath was a figure of this rest, I say, it was but for a season; but inasmuch as it was commanded to men from the beginning that they might employ themselves in the worship of God, it is right that it should continue to the end of the world.

Full version at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom01.viii.i.html. See also http://ad-gloriam-dei.blogspot.com/2006/08/calvin-on-sabbath.html.

The Laudian Settlement of 1662

2010-05-23T15:56:00.003+01:00

The following quote from the Anglican scholar Dr Robert S. Bosher is very perceptive about the Laudian rejection of the more thorough Continental Reformation:

"..the Laudian triumph resulted in a judgement of equal moment - that the Ecclesia Anglicana was of another spirit than Geneva... In the Elizabethan settlement the Reformation had been given a peculiarly English expression, and we may interpret the settlement of 1662 as an equally characteristic version of the Counter-Reformation."

Comment on Religion and War with Particular Reference to Ireland

2010-01-30T09:46:00.006Z

This is something I wrote in response to some comments on a newspaper's blog, one of which called for the closing of churches to stop the animosity in Ulster:

Again we hear the old Atheistic lie: “every war in history has had religion at its roots”. Is this true from an objective assessment? Was Hitler and Stalin’s invasion of Poland due to religion? Was WWI due to religion? Was the Vietnam War due to religion? Did the Romans attack the Carthaginians because of religion? Did Napoleon fight his wars because he was opposed to the religion of his enemies?

The fact is that war can have a religious motivation, sometimes a nationalistic one, sometimes an economic one, sometimes because there is an egoist at the helm. Frequently it has been atheists who have caused a number of the aforementioned wars, usually tied in with a socialist revolutionary spirit.

Let is be noted, despite the obvious, though complex religious aspects to the troubles in Ireland, that a number of the revolutions/ rebellions/ freedom struggles in Irish history are actually linked with this socialist revolutionary spirit. The 1798 Rebellion was linked with the French Revolution, the 1920’s Revolution was linked with the Communist struggles elsewhere and the recent “Troubles” was linked with the revolutionary spirit of the ‘60’s, e.g. French students came over and taught the Republicans how to stage riots and make petrol bombs. One need only enter “Republican West Belfast” to still see that rabid, extremist socialist spirit sprawled on the walls.

Although most of us deplore this violent revolutionism and terrorism, nevertheless there was economic and nationalist provocation behind this. The landowners (including native Irish Catholics) abused the poor people over the years, leading to the terrible Potato Famine. What is often overlooked is the abuse of the Presbyterian people by the same landowners. Many of these Protestants fled Ireland in the 18th Century because of this, leading to the prominent Scots-Irish bloodline of rural America, and the American War for Independence (“that Irish Presbyterian rebellion” as it was called).

Please note as well that when the English invaded Ireland, they were Catholics invading Catholics, and that one of the reasons was to make the Irish Church toe the Roman line. As long as the English were Catholic, then Rome encouraged the Irish to be obedient to their English masters, but when the Reformation happened, then Rome’s view changed.

Why was Ireland so little affected by the Reformation and the people vehemently opposed to Protestantism? One of the main reasons was that the snobbish English aristocrats allowed services and religious books in Latin and English, but not “barbarian” Irish. Elizabeth I fought against Puritan attempts (not to be confused with Cromwell) to translate the Bible into Irish. Protestantism was inextricably linked with Nationalism.

Despite this, you will find many Irish “Catholic” surnames in Protestant churches, and in the Great Revival of 1859 what was noted was the peace around the Twelfth. Loyalist paramilitaries are usually deeply opposed to colleagues who “find religion”. They hate Biblical Christianity as much as those who think that all wars are started by religion!

"Close all the churches"? He is really naive who thinks that Republican and Loyalist terrorists care about going to church!
Continued...

Francis Turretin on the Descent of Christ into Hell, or rather His Descent into Hades

2009-09-20T17:37:00.006+01:00

The misleadingly-titled Apostles' Creed states in the 5th Article that "He descended into hell." How is this to be understood, and what, more importantly, is the Biblical teaching on the matter? I recently scanned the following from the P&R English translation of Turretin for some of the brethren and I'm sure it will be useful for a wider audience, esp. as ignorance is leading some Evangelicals away from the historic belief of the non-Lutheran churches:

Francis Turretin on the Descent of Christ into Hades

Extract from Institutes of Elenctic Theology,
Topic 13, “The Person and State of Christ”

Question 15

Was the soul of Christ, after its separation from the body, translated to paradise immediately? Or did it descend locally to hell?

The former we affirm; the latter we deny against the Papists and Lutherans.

The Statement of the Question

I. The question concerning Christ's descent into hell is twofold: the one with the Papists and some Lutherans, who hold a local descent of Christ; the other among the orthodox themselves concerning the true sense of the article – whether it is to be referred to the spiritual anguish of Christ or to his burial and his most abject state under the dominion of death. We are now to examine the first and will speak of the last immediately afterwards

Il. The Papists maintain that the soul of Christ from the time of its separation from the body straightway descended locally to hell until the resurrection.

In the Catechism of Trent, it is proposed to be believed: “Christ being now dead, his soul descended into hell, and remained there just as long as his body was in the sepulchre” (Catechism of the Council of Trent, Art. 5 [trans. J. A. McHugh, 1923], pp. 62 and 64).

And that no one might think this was only done by virtue and power and not by essence (as Durandus held, cf. Sententias theologicas Petri Lombardi Commentariorum, Bk. 3, Dist. 22, Q. 3, 4 [1556], p. 215), it is added in the same place, “It is to be entirely believed that the soul itself really and by presence descended into hell.” However they wish him to have descended thither for the purpose of freeing the souls of the fathers of the Old Testament detained in limbo and of carrying them with him to heaven.

Ill. The Lutherans agree with them in asserting the substantial descent of Christ into hell; not only into limbo, but into the very place of the damned, to show his victory there and exhibit his triumph.

On this account, they wish it to be referred to the state of exaltation and not to that of humiliation (as Brochmann determines, ‘De Servatoris Nostri Jesu Christi,’ Sect. 14, Q. 6, 7 in Universae theologicae systema [1638], 1:920-23).

IV. Hence the question took this form: Whether Christ descended locally into hell or only to the limbo of the fathers and to purgatory for the purpose of leading out the souls of the pious or to the very place of the damned to openly exhibit his victory. This our opponents hold; we deny.

V. First, the soul of Christ immediately after its release from the body mounted up into paradise, according to the promise made to the thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43).

(1) In vain do our opponents wish the words to be understood of the deity only, with which the soul of the thief was to be in paradise.

They involve the futurition in paradise or the translation not only of the soul of the thief, but also of Christ; that as Christ and the thief truly suffered, so they were to be carried together also into heaven, that both conditions might be common to both. And thus they were consolatory not only in order to the thief, but also to the Lord himself that in a short time they would both emerge from their distresses. Thus in the same manner, they might be in heaven as to their souls as they were on the cross together as to their bodies.

Hence Cyprian: “The thief was made a partaker of the kingdom, who had been made by his confession a colleague in martyrdom” (‘De Passione Christi’ [attributed to Cyprian] in Amold Camotensis, Opera, p. 50 in Cyprian, Opera led. John Oxoniensem, 1682]). The words themselves prove this. Christ does not say, "I will be with you" (which designated the presence of the deity in paradise), but “thou shalt be with me,” in order to promise him the fellowship of his humanity. Fellowship with Christ in his kingdom is promised. Now this cannot be understood of the deity (which concedes to no one such a privilege), but of Christ, the God-man (theanthropo), who calls believers into a share of his kingdom.

(2) No better do others wish the word “today” to be referred to the words of Christ, not to the introduction into paradise. Thus the sense is, “Today I say to you,” that thou shalt be with me in paradise.

As Suarez well remarks, this is an elusion, not an interpretation. For there was no need for Christ to indicate this, which the verb of the present tense and the expression of Christ itself sufficiently indicated. Rather he wishes to encourage the thief (constituted in agony and breathing after the grace of Christ) by this consolation that his petition would be fulfilled on that very day.

(3) Thomas Aquinas also gratuitously feigns, “Paradise here denotes generally the place of happiness, wherever it may be, in which they are said to be who enjoy the divine glory; whence the thief as to place was in hell with Christ, as to reward in paradise; so that paradise is wherever Christ is and wherever God is seen” (ST, Ill, Q. 52, Art. 4, p. 2305).

But what is this except to mingle heaven not only with earth but also with hell? Thus the thief on the cross would have been already in paradise because he was there with Christ. Christ, however, speaks of that paradise, where he was not then.

Finally, in no other way is paradise to be understood than as Scripture elsewhere speaks of it: as the seat of the blessed (2 Cor. 12:4; Rev. 2:7), which Bellarmine (‘De Sanctorum Beatitudine,’ 3 Opera 2:426) and Suarez (‘Commentaria ... in tertiam partem D. Thomae,’ Q. 52, Dist. 42 in Opera Omnia [1856-78J, 19:697-743) acknowledge.

The thing itself proves this because the promise of Christ ought to answer to the petition of the thief, “Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” To which Christ answers, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” (i.e. in my kingdom).

VI. Second, the soul of Christ was in the hand of the Father: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). Therefore it was not in hell because according to the style of Scripture the hand of the Father is not to be understood with respect to power (according to which the hand of God is everywhere, Psa. 139: 7 -10) or as it is the terrible hand of God, the Judge; but as the consoling hand of the Father of mercy with respect to glory and grace; or the condition of the blessed usually described by being in the hand of God.

It is confirmed by this – that Christ by this phrase wished to proclaim that nothing more remained to be done by him, both as to freeing others and as to undergoing new torments. But as the body was about to enjoy its repose in the sepulchre, so the soul also was about to rest from all its labours and be bathed in the greatest joys. For to commit or commend the soul has a relation to foregoing labours. Christ, however, could not have said, “I commend my spirit,” if after death he was yet to descend into hell and suffer the most grievous burdens.

He commends his spirit to the hand of his Father in the same manner as David and Stephen commended their souls because these were the very words of David before (Psa. 31:5), from whom Christ took them, and of Stephen afterwards (Acts 7:59), who imitated Christ himself; yea, as Peter recommends all believers to commit their souls to the faithful Creator (1 Pet. 4:19); not assuredly that they may descend into hell, but be received into heaven (as the ordinary gloss has it, “Into thy hands I commend my spirit that you may receive it, leaving the body”).

Hence among the fathers the hand of the Father and hell are opposed. Cyril of Alexandria says, “The innocent above, the guilty below; the innocent in heaven, the guilty in the abyss; the innocent in the hand of God, the guilty in the hand of the devil” (De exitu animi [PG 77.1082 J).

VII. Third, if according to the soul Christ truly and locally descended into hell, either that was done to suffer something there or to free the fathers or to preach the gospel to the dead, or to show his victory to the devils.

But the first cannot be said because he finished all things on the cross (John 19:30) and by one offering he perfected forever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:14).

Not the second because they were already admitted into heaven; nor were they ever in a fictitious limbo, as was proved before.

Not the third because preaching the gospel belongs only to the state of this life, not to the condition of death. If Peter says, “The gospel was preached to the dead” (1 Pet. 4:6), this is not to be understood in the compound sense (as if he had preached to the dead as such because since they are not in the state of the way, they need no more any preaching), but in the divided sense (i.e. to them who are now dead, but who formerly lived when the gospel was preached to them).

Not the fourth because that descent ought to be penal, not triumphal and belongs to the state of humiliation, not of exaltation.

VIII. Now that such was the descent of Christ various arguments prove:

(1) According to the style of Scripture, a descent into hell signifies the most terrible adversities and most exquisite pains (Gen. 37:35; Job 14:13; Psa. 6:5; 86:13; 130:1).

(2) The passages which speak of the descent into hell denote his extreme misery, not a triumph (to wit, in which he was not on that account to be left, but to be freed by the Father, Acts 2:30, 31).

(3) The descent into the lowest parts of the earth is opposed to his ascension above all the heavens, which is a part of the exaltation (Eph. 4:9). Therefore it ought to be a part of his humiliation.

IX. The “heart of the earth” in the style of the Hebrews means nothing else than what is within the earth, for lb is put for thvdh (which is the middle) and what is internal is often called the middle, whether it is in the middle or not. The borders of Tyre are said to have been “in the midst of the seas” (Ezek. 27:4) because washed on all sides by the sea; the mountain is said to have “burned unto the midst of heaven” (Deut. 4:11), i.e. up to the middle region of the air.

Thus “to be in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40) means nothing else than to be within the earth whether that be nearer or more remote from its surface. In this way is intimated the state of Christ's body in the sepulchre (which was in the earth, in which it rested until the third day).

X. When Christ is said to have “descended into the lower parts of the earth” (eis ta katotera mere tes ges, Eph. 4:9), a local descent is not implied, but his humiliation and manifestation in the flesh which he assumed on earth, so that it is nothing else than to descend to the earth (which is the lowest part of the universe) by a construction sufficiently known to the Hebrews, in which the governing word stands for the apposition – “in the lowest parts of the earth” (Psa. 139:15), i.e. in the earth, which is the lower part with respect to heaven.

Thus not the parts of the earth are compared with each other, but the heaven and the earth, parts of the universe. Nor do the words of the text admit of any other meaning. There is an opposition between the ascent from earth to heaven and the descent from heaven. However, as the ascent has the earth as the point from which and heaven as the point to which, so in turn the descent has heaven as the point from which and the earth as the point to which. This Cajetan saw, who by the lower parts of the earth wishes to be understood “the earth which is the lowest part of the world as distinguished from the lower parts of the heaven which are in the air. And thus he would more clearly have expressed it, because he descended first to the lower part of the earth.”

Sources of Explanation

XI. When Peter says “the soul of Christ was not to be left in hell” (Acts 2:27 from Psa. 16:10), a local descent cannot be understood, but the detention in the sepulchre because this is referred by Peter to the resurrection.

This is gathered:

(1) From the connection “my flesh,” says he, “shall rest” (i.e. in the sepulchre) “in hope, because thou wilt not leave.”

(2) From the phrase added for explanation, “Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One” (i.e. me) “to see corruption” (to wit, in the body), which otherwise it would undergo if left in the sepulchre.

(3) From a comparison with Acts 13:34,35, where God is said to have raised up Christ from the dead that he might not see corruption.

Nor is this opposed either by the word psyches [“soul”] which as Emanuel Sa (de phrasibus Scriptura) remarks, is put by a synecdoche of a part for the whole, for the whole person itself frequently elsewhere (Psa. 3:2; 17:13; Acts 7:14) or of a part for a part, for the body itself (Lev. 19:28; 21:1, 11; Num. 5:1; Luke 6:9) as Virgil (“We bury the soul in the tomb,” Aeneid 3.68 [Loeb, 1:352-53]), or by the word “Hades”, which evidently is often put for the sepulchre, as will be proved hereafter.

XII. The passage in Peter, when “Christ quickened by the Spirit” is said “to have preached unto the spirits in prison” (tois en phylake, 1 Pet. 3:19), does not favour the local descent into hell.

(1) Peter does not speak of "the soul," but of "the Spirit." Therefore it cannot be understood of any descent of the soul. For that Spirit cannot here be taken for the soul but for the Deity is gathered from the preceding verse. No other Spirit is meant than he by whom he was quickened. This cannot be said of the soul, neither subjectively because that only is quickened which can die (which cannot apply to the soul), nor efficiently because quickening is a work of infinite power. On this account, the Deity itself must necessarily be understood.

This is often thus designated elsewhere (Rom. 1:4; Heb. 9:14; 1 Tim. 3:16) where he is said to have been “justified by the Spirit,” which Cajetan, Gagnaeus, Thomas Aquinas, Lyranus and others understand of the deity and the Holy Spirit.

(2) It treats of the apeithesasi (i.e. rebellious spirits) who did not obey those giving them good advice (such as the fathers cannot be called, whom they wish Christ to have led out of limbo [in which they were detained] to heaven). Nor can it be said that they indeed were unbelieving at first but afterwards repented because this is not in the text, but is rather opposed to it. For eight only are said to have been saved, the rest to have perished. Yet if some had repented, Peter would not have called them apeitheis.

(3) There is no mention here of liberation, but only of preaching.

(4) The “prison” (phylake) treated of here is taken only in two ways in Scripture, either for a nightly guard, or for a prison in which the guilty are detained (Luke 3:20). Since, in truth, it cannot be used here in the first sense, it ought necessarily to be taken for a prison (as the interlinear Gloss says, “the prison of darkness and unbelief”). Nowhere in Scripture is any place called a prison where happy spirits are contained.

(5) The preaching is not said to have been made to the spirits being in prison, as if they were in prison at the time of the preaching. For to what purpose would it have been made since there is granted no exit from it?

But it is said to have been made formerly in the time of Noah (in which God's patience waited for men) to them who (at the time in which Peter writes) are in prison. Hence Peter does not say ekeryxe tois pneumasi en phylake, but tois en phylake pneumasi ekeryxe. Thus the substantive verb must be supplied, not as the Vulgate has it iis qui in carcere erant as if they were in prison at the time of the preaching, but tois ousi (“who are,” to wit, at the time of the apostle's writing). For that pote Peter does not join with the words en phylake, but with apeithesasi in this manner, tois en phylake pneumasi apeithesasi pote, clearly distinguishing the times in which they were rebellious in the days of Noah and in which they were thrust into prison on account of their rebellion.

Thus the meaning of the passage is plain, as our Beza has most happily explained it. “Christ,” says he, “whom I said was quickened by the Spirit, having gone, not by a change of place, but by a certain special manifestation of his presence, by revelation and operation, as God is often said to come in Scripture, not literally but figuratively and metaphorically; not in the body, which he had not yet assumed, but by that very Spirit or divine power by which he rose again and was quickened, and inspired (by which the prophets spoke, 1 Pet. 1:11) preached to those spirits, which are now in the prison of hell, where they suffer the punishment of their rebellion to his preaching in the time of Noah.”

This Andradius saw, saying that this is the meaning of the passage – “in which Spirit (coming long before) he preached to those spirits who now in prison pay the deserved penalty of their former unbelief, since they never wished to believe Noah telling them of their duty and building an ark by God's command” (Defensio tridentinae fidei catholicae 2 [1580], p. 294).

XIII. If Christ is said by the resurrection “to have been loosed from the pains of death” (Acts 2:24), it does not follow that he endured pains up to the moment of his resurrection and that his soul departed into hell, where he could be affected by such pains. The passage can be understood in two ways:

(1) That “the pains of death” by a grammatical figure (hen dia dyoin) are put for a painful death. Christ, it is said, “will baptise with the Holy Ghost and with fire” (as Matt. 3:11), i.e. with spiritual fire, as Virgil, “I sing of arms and men,” i.e. the armed man (Aeneid 1.1 [Loeb, 1:240-41]). It is certain that the death of Christ was connected with the most exquisite pains, nor was that death resolved except in the moment of the resurrection.

(2) The passage to which Peter alludes (Psa. 18:5) employs the expression chbly mvth, which properly denotes cables and chains by which the man is detained as a captive in death, from which he is released by the resurrection. Thus there is no need to invent in addition any suffering of the soul after death. However, Peter, following the Septuagint, retains the word odinas, which can connote both the torments he suffered in death and the chains of death, by which in a measure he was bound in the sepulchre. Thus the meaning may be “whom” (namely, Christ) “God hath raised up, having loosed the chains of death because it was impossible that he should be always holden [krateisthai] like a captive by it.”

XlV. The triumphal song which Paul sings (after Hosea, 1 Cor. 15:54,55) is rightly referred to the resurrection of Christ, by which he began to triumph over sin, death and hell. But it cannot pertain to a descent into hell, which was the lowest degree of his humiliation, in which he seemed to be only not swallowed up by death.

Question 16

May the descent into hell [Editor: Hades] be rightly referred to infernal torments and to a most abject state under the dominion of death in the sepulchre? We affirm.

The Statement of the Question

I. By the preceding question, the false opinion of the papists concerning the local descent of Christ into hell was refuted. Now its true and genuine sense must be given. About this again the orthodox do not altogether agree among themselves, some referring it to the spiritual anguish and hellish torments which he suffered (as Calvin, Beza, Danaeus, Ursinus and others, even various confessions of the churches), others maintaining that it pertains to his burial and three days' detention in the sepulchre (as Zanchius, Piscator, Pierius and others).

Il. However, we must observe before all things that we do not inquire concerning the origin of this article – whether it was contained from the beginning in the Apostles' Creed and constantly acknowledged and received by the churches. For it is evident that no mention is made of it in the Nicene Creed and in the Roman, according to Ruffinus (A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 28 [NPNF2, 3:553-54 D. The ancients who published confessions and set forth the rule of faith (such as Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Augustine and others) say nothing about it. Also it is referred by Ruflinus only to the end of the fourth century.

This article does indeed occur in the Athanasian Creed, but the article of burial being omitted is a clear proof that they were considered as one and the same thing. So it is very probable that this article was transferred from the Athanasian to the Apostles' Creed and at first perhaps was placed in the margin for the purpose of explication; then from the margin into the text itself where it was afterwards retained and incorporated with it. But this question being now dismissed, we treat here only concerning its true sense (about which all do not agree).

Ill. However, since there is no other cause for this discrepancy than the ambiguity of the word sh'vl [Editor: Sheol] and hades and the manifold sense of the phrase “to descend into hell,” these must be briefly discussed.

The word sh'vl [Editor: Sheol] is spoken in Scripture in four ways:

(1) For a sepulchre (Psa. 16:10; 49:15);

(2) For the place of the damned (Luke 16:23);

(3) For the greatest torments (Psa. 18:5; 116:3);

(4) For extreme humiliation (Isa. 14:15).

Hence to descend into hell [Editor: Hades] is used in four ways:

(a) It denotes to be buried (Gen. 37:35; 42:38);

(b) To descend into the place of the damned (Num. 16:33);

(d) To be extremely humbled (Matt. 11:23).

According to this fourfold signification, there can be a fourfold meaning of this article. So that it may be referred either to:

A local descent into the place of the damned (as the papists and Lutherans hold and refuted by us already);

Or to the burial of Christ,

Or to his infernal sufferings,

Or to the extreme degree of his humiliation.

The Reasons for the Burial and the State of the Dead

IV. They who hold that this article does not differ from his burial rest especially upon these reasons:

(1) That Peter (from Psa. 16:10 in Acts 2:31) seems clearly to refer to the burial of Christ, “David seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell.”

(2) Everywhere in Scripture sh'vl [Editor: Sheol] is put for the sepulchre and to descend into hell for to descend into the sepulchre (as Arias Montanus, Emanuel Sa and other papists and lexicographers teach).

(3) In various creeds mention is made of a descent into hell, no mention being made of the sepulchre (as in the Athanasian Creed, which evinces that they were taken by him for one and the same thing). And here can be referred the fact that Paul mentions Christ's death, burial and resurrection according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3, 4), but says nothing of his descent into hell. However he would have spoken of it if he had believed that such an article meant anything else than his burial.

V. Still it is not probable that this article is the same as the burial.

(1) It would be a tautology (tautologia) scarcely to be endured in so succinct and brief a creed.

(2) It cannot be said that this article was appended to the former concerning the burial to explain it, since it is more obscure than the former.

Thus it is not to be referred precisely to the burial, but to the state of death or his detention in the sepulchre under the dominion of death (as this phrase is often used to describe the state of the dead; cf. Gen. 37:35 where Jacob, bewailing his son Joseph whom he believed to have been tom in pieces by wild beasts, says, “I will go down” lsh'vl “unto my son mourning”; not indeed into a sepulchre because he supposed he had been tom in pieces by wild beasts and not buried, but simply to death or the state of the dead). Thus “in death there is no remembrance of thee, in sh'vl who shall give thee thanks?” (Psa. 6:5; cf. Job 17:13-15; Psa. 30:3; 49:15; Isa. 14:11,19,20).

VI. Also, the passage of Peter (Acts 2:27) drawn from the oracle (Psa. 16:10) seems necessarily to demand this: “Thou wilt not leave my soul eis hadou” (supply oikon, employed by him to prove the resurrection). He says this prophecy was fulfilled by the resurrection of Christ, so that the meaning is: “Thou wilt not leave my soul” (i.e. my life) or “me in death, but wilt raise me up from death by the resurrection.” Here belongs what is said in v. 24 concerning “the pains” or “chains of death” by which he was holden as a captive by death (from which he was released by the resurrection). It was impossible (both on account of the glory of his divinity and on account of the holiness of his humanity) to be held any longer by it.

Reasons for the Torments

VII. But neither is the other opinion to be repudiated which understands this descent of the extreme sufferings of Christ endured both in the garden and on the cross. It agrees:

(1) With the style of Scripture which usually designates the most grievous torments by “hell” and the “pains of hell,” as we have already said;

(2) With the creed, that the most weighty and special sufferings of Christ be not passed over in silence (which would be the case, unless the descent of Christ into hell be understood of the internal sufferings of his soul). For the preceding articles speak only of the external sufferings of the body.

Reconciliation of the Two Opinions

VIII. If it is asked which of these two opinions ought to be retained, we answer both can be admitted and be made to agree perfectly with each other.

Thus by the descent into hell may be understood the extreme degree of Christ's suffering and humiliation, both as to soul and body; and as the lowest degree of humiliation as to the body was its detention in the sepulchre, so as to the soul were those dreadful torments he felt. And thus this last article will be apposite for expressing the last degree of Christ's humiliation, whether as to disgrace of body or as to anguish of soul.

Nor should it seem wonderful if these two parts (mutually diverse from each other) should be joined together in one and the same article. It is not unusual in Scripture for a single sense to put on various relations (schesin) and for many things to be embraced together, especially when the things are mutually subordinated and connected with each other. Since this phrase may be referred now to abjection of the body, then to griefs of the soul (and Christ should have undergone both conditions), it was not without reason that the ancients added this article to the preceding in order to set forth more distinctly this state of Christ.

Sources of Explanation

IX. The constant and indissoluble union of the human nature with the divine in Christ does not hinder him from being able to suffer both in soul and in body the punishment due to us. The union with the Word causes him indeed to be always holy and free from all sin; but not that he should be always happy and glorious (since he came that he might suffer). Christ always had the glory of person as God-man (theanthropos); but he ought not to always have the glory of human nature (which he was to obtain only after his resurrection) because he was to be tempted in all things equally with us and be made a curse for our salvation.

X. As he is properly said to be damned who in hell endures the punishment due to his own sins, this term cannot be applied to Christ, who never suffered for his own but for our sins; nor did he suffer in hell, but on earth. Still there is no objection to saying that the Son of God was condemned for us by God, just as elsewhere he is said to have been made a curse (katara) and malediction for us. Nor is it more absurd to say that Christ was condemned than that the Lord of glory suffered and was crucified and for our sake was crucified and chastened (as is so often said).

XI. The vision of God belonging to the saints in heaven by glory differs from that of believers on earth by grace. They who see God in the former manner can be subjected to no further punishments and pains because they are in their native country, constituted in a state of happiness. But it is not the same with believers who, although they see God by faith, do not cease to be exposed to various afflictions. Christ on earth (as man) saw God in the latter sense, and far more perfectly than believers; but this vision did not hinder him from suffering and complaining that he was forsaken of God.

Continued...

Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Great Christian Example?

2009-03-31T18:37:00.009+01:00

Dietrich Bonhoeffer is portrayed as a great example of the Christian faith, e.g. in Christian Focus' "Ten Boys Who Didn't Give in". (Christian Focus' childrens books are a blessing from God, but one of the main criticisms I would have is their uncritical presentation of some Christians and professed Christians.) Although, there are aspects of his life that are a great example, it is questionable whether he was a Christian.

I came across the following account of his life:

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a rare individual. He transcended the human plane as he practiced what he taught. His last book entitled, "Ethics," was unfinished because he was executed in prison for living the ethics he preached. In this book, "Ethics," Bonhoeffer states, "Ethics as formation, then, means the bold endeavor to speak about the way in which the form of Jesus Christ takes form in our world, in a manner which is neither abstract nor casuistic, neither programmatic nor purely speculative." Partly because his theology would not allow a speculative ethic, Bonhoeffer returned from the safety of New York City to a Germany ruled by the insanity called National Socialism. There, he became a leader, along with Martin Niemueller and Karl Barth, in the "bekennende Kirche" opposing National Socialism and an advocate on behalf of Jewish People. His efforts earned him imprisonment in 1943. As the Second European War (1939-1945) came to a close, Bonhoeffer was hanged until dead in the concentration camp at Flossenburg. Dietrich Bonoeffer understood the cost of discipleship. His writings in "Ethics," have value for all, regardless of creed. It is written by someone of strong convictions, and is inspiring in ethical standards.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) was a neo-orthodox German theologian, pastor, preacher, radio broadcaster, and prolific writer in the 1930s and early-1940s, during the rise, rule, and downfall of Adolph Hitler. He was greatly fascinated with neo-orthodox thought, theology, and terminology, and was greatly influenced by the major theologian of neo-orthodoxy, Karl Barth (1886-1968).

Bonhoeffer's writings are credited with helping to father the "Death of God" theology which was popularized by the Anglican Bishop John A.T. Robinson in the decade of the1960s. Bonhoeffer in reality did not adhere to biblical literalism and subsequent fundamental beliefs, a religious humanist, that of the historical Christ, as opposed to the traditional one. (Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge, New York: Macmillan Co., 1972, pp. 9-12).

Bonhoeffer readily acknowledged "the debt he owes to liberal theology." Declaring that it was impossible to know the objective truth about Christ's real nature and essence, Bonhoeffer proclaimed that God was dead. Moreover, Bonhoeffer believed that the true Christian was the confessing believer who totally immersed his life in the secular world, becoming a secular Christian. Rejecting the objective unalterable moral standards of the Bible, Bonhoeffer proclaimed a situational ethics -- that right and wrong are determined solely by the "loving obligations of the moment" (Letters and Papers from Prison, ed. Eberhard Bethge, New York: Macmillan Co., 1972, pp. 9-12, 378; Ethics, pp. 38, 186; No Rusty Swords, pp. 44-45).

- The son of a Berlin professor of psychiatry, Bonhoeffer studied theology at Tubingen, Berlin and at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. When Hitler came to power in 1933, Bonhoeffer, student chaplain and lecturer at the University of Berlin, joined the anti-Nazi pastors in the German "church struggle." In 1935, he was appointed head of the Finkenwalde Confessing Church Seminary, which was closed by the government in 1937. In 1939, Bonhoeffer rejected the possibility of a job in America, safe from the impending European war. He was convinced that he had to face the difficulties ahead with the Christians in Germany.

Back in Germany during World War II, Bonhoeffer was forbidden to preach or to publish. Though claiming to be a disciple of Gandhi and his credo of non-violence, Bonhoeffer worked as a double agent in the anti-Nazi resistance movement and in the German military office, and eventually joined the wartime conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. While, Dietrich Bonhoffer and Martin Niemoller both held what some believe to be Church-inspired antisemitic positions, they did not progress to the next stage along the antisemitic continuum but instead risked their lives during the Holocaust to defend Jews and they courageously and actively opposed Nazism. His arrest in 1943, however, arose from his direct involvement in smuggling fourteen Jews to Switzerland. He was hanged by the Nazis at Flossenburg on April 9, 1945.

Although only 39 when executed, Bonhoeffer left a rich legacy of books, some of his best known being Sanctorum Communio, Act and Being, The Cost of Discipleship, and Life Together, as well as letters, papers, and notes published by his close friend and biographer, Eberhard Bethge. These include Letters and Papers from Prison, Ethics, and six volumes of collected writings (Dr. Ruth Zerner, City University of New York, "Dietrich Bonhoeffer," Eerdmans' Handbook To The History of Christianity, 1977, p. 603).

- Although Bonhoeffer presented his own strain of neo-orthodox existentialism, many evangelicals have been taken in by his warm-hearted piety and by his high sounding devotion to Christ and call to suffer for His sake. His religious terminology may appear to be evangelical, but its substance was existential. Yet, there are those today who continue to present Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a genuine Christian hero (e.g., Don Matzat, Chuck Colson, and the editorial board of Christianity Today). Grand Rapids Baptist College (GARBC -- now Cornerstone College) scheduled a play in the fall of 1991 which extolled Bonhoeffer's memory. And Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr., has used quotes from Bonhoeffer to expound on the nature of true Christian fellowship ("The Riches and Responsibilities of Fellowship," The Master's Current, Winter 1994, p. 2). All such accolades to Bonhoeffer are clearly unwarranted.

- The following is a summary of beliefs and influence of Dietrich Bonhoeffer as taken from some of the over 14 books and documents attributed to him:

1. He believed that "God is teaching us that we must live as men who can get along very well without Him. The God who is with us is the God who forsakes us." Bonhoeffer also believed that the concept of God as a "supreme Being, absolute in power and goodness," was a "spurious conception of transcendence," and that "God as a working hypothesis in morals, politics, and science ... should be dropped, or as far as possible eliminated" (Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 122, 164, 360).

2. He believed that mankind had become of age and no longer needed religion, which was only a deceptive garment of true faith; he suggested the need for a "religionless Christianity." To Bonhoeffer, "the Christian is identified not by his beliefs, but by actions, by his participation in the suffering of God in the life of the world" (Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, p. 163). Thus, Bonhoeffer's final writings have given impulse to Marxist theologians sponsoring "liberation theology" and to others wishing to promote a worldly social gospel.

3. He refused to discuss the origin of Christ, His relationship to the Father, His two natures, or even the relationship of the two natures. Bonhoeffer was adamant in his belief that it was impossible to know the objective truth about the real essence of Christ's being-nature (Christ the Center, pp. 30, 88, 100-101).

4. He questioned the Virgin Birth, and in reality denied it (The Cost of Discipleship, p. 215).

5. He denied the deity of Christ; he advocated that "Jesus Christ Today" is not a real person and being, but a "corporate presence" (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 75-76; Christ the Center, p. 58).

6. He denied the sinlessness of Christ's human nature and further questioned the sinlessness of His earthly behavior (Christ the Center, pp. 108-109).

7. He believed that Christ exists in three "revelatory forms" -- as Word, as sacrament, and as church. From asserting that Christ is the church, he followed that all persons in the church are identical with Christ (Christ the Center, p. 58; The Cost of Discipleship, p. 217). This amounts to pantheism!

8. He believed that Christianity is not exclusive, i.e., that Christ is not the only way to God (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 55-56).

9. He was a prominent figure in the early ecumenical movement, as evidenced through his associations with the "World Alliance for International Friendship" (a forerunner of the apostate World Council of Churches [WCC]), Union Theological Seminary, and Visser 't Hooft (who later became the first General Secretary of the WCC) (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 22, 212, 568). Bonhoeffer also reached out to Roman Catholics, prefiguring the broader ecumenism that blossomed after Vatican II in the mid-1960s.

10. He was a practical evolutionist (No Rusty Swords, p. 143), and believed that the book of Genesis was scientifically naive and full of myths (Creation and Fall: A Theological Interpretation of Genesis 1-3).

11. He adhered to neo-orthodox theology and terminology concerning salvation (Testimony to Freedom, p. 130), was a sacramentalist (Life Together, p. 122; The Way to Freedom, pp. 115, 153), believed in regenerational infant baptism (Letters and Papers from Prison, Macmillan, pp. 142-143) as well as adult baptismal regeneration (The Way to Freedom, p. 151), equated church membership with salvation (The Way to Freedom, p. 93), and denied a personal/individualistic salvation (Letters and Papers from Prison, Macmillan, p. 156).

12. He placed little or no value on the Old Testament --"... the faith of the Old Testament is not a religion of salvation" (Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, p. 112).

13. He denied the verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture, believing that the Bible was only a "witness" to the Word of God and becomes the Word of God only when it "speaks" to an individual; otherwise, it was simply the word of man/men (Testimony to Freedom, pp. 9, 104; Sanctorum Communio, p. 161). To Bonhoeffer, the Bible was meant "to be expounded as a witness, not as a book of wisdom, a teaching book, a book of eternal truth" (No Rusty Swords, p. 118). He also believed in the value of higher criticism/historical criticism, which is a denial of the inerrancy and authenticity of the Bible (Christ the Center, pp. 73-74).

14. He had no faith in the physical resurrection of Christ. Bonhoeffer believed the "historicity" of the Resurrection was in "the realm of ambiguity," and that it was one of the "mythological" elements of Christianity that "must be interpreted in such a way as not to make religion a pre-condition of faith." He also believed that "Belief in the Resurrection is not the solution of the problem of death," and that such things as miracles and the ascension of Christ were "mythological conceptions" as well (Christ the Center, p. 112; Letters and Papers from Prison, S.C.M. Press edition, Great Britain: Fontana Books, 1953, pp. 93-94, 110).

- Dr. G. Archer Weniger declared, "If there is wholesome food in a garbage can, then one can find some good things in Bonhoeffer, but if it be dangerous to expect to find nourishment in a garbage can, then Bonhoeffer must be totally rejected and repudiated as blasphemy. It is worse than garbage" (FBF Information Bulletin, May 1977, p. 12).
Continued...

The Eternal God and Time: Timeless or Everlasting?

2008-12-08T23:34:00.006Z

Often one hears that because God is eternal that He is timeless, or that He is outside of time, or that He is looking 'in on time', or that all time is present to Him at once, or that if He wasn't timeless then He would be subject to something outside of Himself, or God has to be timeless because He created time, or because He can do many things at once or can do things instantaneously, then He must be timeless.

Stop and think: where does the Bible say any of this? Where does it present data that inevitably leads to such statements? I can't think of any. Can you? Isn't this just speculation?

Let us think about some of these statements. Is God presented as timeless in the Bible, or is He only presented as interacting with events in time? "Didn't God do certain things in eternity?" you may reply. Yes, He did do things in eternity, but what is eternity? We are all going to live in eternity future - are we going to be timeless? Eternity past is just that infinite period prior to the creation. That's all we know. Indeed, events within eternity past are given a time frame, e.g. "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4). The decree happened BEFORE the creation.

God is certainly omniscient; He knows all things, but that is not to say that He is timeless. He knows the end from the beginning (Isa. 46:10), but this is far different from being present at the beginning, middle and end all at the one time, which is what the "timeless" view is saying. If all things are actually present to Him at once (and not that He knows all of history from the beginning), then all things are present at once, i.e. all peoples, events, etc., have always been, or are eternal, and the Universe takes on a pantheistic quality. Surely this is irrational and utterly against Scriptural theology?

Also, what is time? Time is just a progression, or sequence, of events, or (in some cases) thoughts. This progression may indeed take place slower in certain parts of the Universe than others (as per Einstein), but this is not to say that God does not operate in His own time, to which all other time frames are relative to.

To Materialist, like Einstein (his fatal flaw), time is dependent on material things (hence the space-time continuum), but this neglects the immaterial. Time is not created. It isn't a force. It is merely the progression of material or immaterial events.

If God is not timeless, then this is not to say that He is subject to something outside Himself. To say that God is love, is not to say that He is subject to love outside Himself, is it? It is may be 'ultimate time' is an attribute of God Himself. He is the standard for all time events. If time is an attribute of God (albeit everlasting and incommunicable in that sense, just as God has infinite knowledge, but we have knowledge), then time isn't created. It isn't outside of God at all.

God can do many things at once, but that is just to say that He is almighty, not timeless. God can do things instantaneously, but that is just to say that He is again almighty, or infinitely fast.

A thousand years are as one day in His sight, but this is just to say that just as a grain of sand is nothing to us in comparion, due to our size, and yet it is huge to a virus, so also a thousands years is huge to us, but it seems like a day to Him (and in reality even less!). This is just a statement of relativity.

There is no Scriptural warrant for describing God's eternity as "timeless" as far as I can tell. All we know is that it is "everlasting":

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever You had formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." (Psalm 90:1)

Anything else is man-made speculation. It is easy to make pious assertions and seem to exalt God, but is it pious to make assertions with no Biblical warrant? Is this bearing a witness to the truth, or is it exalting ourselves above what He has chosen to reveal to us. I don't know all about God and time, but I do know that God has not revealed that He is timeless.

(See also Robert Reymond's New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith on God's eternity, and R.L. Dabney as quoted by Reymond.)

Continued...

Enjoying God

2008-10-13T20:24:00.007+01:00

Our congregation is studying the Shorter Catechism in our Home Fellowship Groups. It was disappointing to see the first chapter of the book that we are using virtually ignoring the question of enjoying God. Glorifying God is only half of our chief end. There is one chief end that encompasses BOTH glorifying and enjoying God.

How different this is to our Puritan and Covenanting forefathers! Ussher begins his Body of Divinity with the question of happiness and what men especially desire. Perkins defined theology as "the science of living blessedly forever". Thomas Vincent in his commentary on the Catechism deals in a balanced way with both glorifying AND enjoying God. This was Puritanism! It was so much more than the Five Points of Calvinism, and pure forms of worship and Church Government.

John Piper's Desiring God is a much needed antidote to the imbalanced half-answer that many Reformed Christians really give to the first question of the Shorter Catechism, even if his "glorifying God BY enjoying Him forever" goes too far (in my opinion).

(Although this blog is called "Ad Gloriam Dei", the real motto of our family is "Ad Gloriam et Delectorem Dei", but that was too much of a mouthful for a blog title.)

Continued...

Sing a New Song! Shouldn’t We Compose New Hymns, Instead of Singing Old Psalms?

2008-10-13T19:11:00.019+01:00

Given that there are several exhortations in the Bible to “sing a new song”, shouldn’t Psalms-only advocates ‘take a leaf out of their Psalter’ and obey the exhortation to compose new songs and hymns for congregational worship?

‘Sing to Him a new song! Play skilfully with a shout of joy!’ (Psalm 33:3)

‘He has put a new song in my mouth — praise to our God! Many will see it and fear, and will trust in the LORD.’ (Psalm 40:3)

‘Oh, sing to the LORD a new song! Sing to the LORD, all the earth.’ (Psalm 96:1)

‘Oh, sing to the LORD a new song! For he has done marvellous things; his right hand and his holy arm have gained him the victory.’ (Psalm 98:1)

‘I will sing a new song to you, O God! On a harp of ten strings I will sing praises to you!’ (Psalm 144:9)

‘Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, and his praise in the assembly of saints.’ (Psalm 149:1)

‘Sing to the LORD a new song, and his praise from the ends of the earth, you who go down to the sea, and all that is in it, you coastlands and you inhabitants of them!’ (Isaiah 42:10)

This is a fair question and one that I asked when I was a teenager examining the practice of the Church in which I was raised. Let me answer it in my imperfect way.

Did Those Contemporary to Scripture Compose New Songs?

Just like the appeal to Paul’s exhortations to sing “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”, the superficial interpretation that “sing a new song” calls for new man-made composures should be carefully examined in the light of the history of the Old and New Testament Churches, and the early, post-Apostolic Church.

This is not to invoke “tradition” as authoritative, but to aid us in the normal task of interpretation. We usually interpret words and phrases as contemporaries understood them. We should have lots of examples of hymn-composition, if this is how they understood these words, but we don't. We don't even have a little! This doesn’t seem right, if the exhortation to “sing a new song” is a call for new compositions.

More importantly than extra-Biblical sources, Scripture itself gives no indication that we are called to add to, or take from, the God-given Hymnal.

If those contemporary to Scripture didn’t practice the composition of new hymns, except for prophets like David called to this task, then it seems unlikely that “sing a new song” could refer to such a practice. Is there an interpretation that makes more sense in the light of the rest of Scripture and known Church practice?

What Does “New” Mean?

“A new commandment I give to you: that you love one another.” (John 13:34)

‘And now I plead with you, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment to you, but that which we have had from the beginning: that we love one another.’ (2 John 1:5)

‘He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which you heard from the beginning.

‘Again, a new commandment I write to you, which thing is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining… He who loves his brother abides in the light…’ (1 John 2:6-8,10)

When we hear the word “new”, we usually think of something freshly made that didn’t exist before, but Scripture doesn’t always use the term this way.

Christ calls the exhortation to love one another “a new commandment”. Did this commandment not always exist? Yes, it did. Christ Himself says that the Law could be summed-up in our love for God and for our neighbour. Indeed, the Second Table of the Law is devoted to loving our neighbour, for love is the fulfilment of the Law. As John said, it was not a new commandment, but an old commandment they had from the beginning. So clearly Jesus didn’t mean that it had not previously existed.

John also says that there is a sense in which the command to love one another is new because a radical change has happened when the light of Christ shines in the heart of true believers.

Even the Psalms which are the “new songs” in question are not particularly new, in the sense of not having previously existed. The content in each case was sung many times before, and indeed several of them repeat what the other “new songs” already stated. Interestingly, Psalm 96 would appear not to be a new composition. It was extracted from a longer song that is found in 1 Chron. 16:8-36 and only encompasses vv. 23-33 of that chapter. (Or was this latter song an expansion of the former?)

Newness as Freshness

“New” in the Scriptures can mean that it is so unusual, fresh and different, that it is as if it had never existed previously. In my opinion, this definition fits what Christ was saying in John 13:34. This commandment had fallen into such disuse by the selfishness of men that it was something new to them, even though it was as old as God himself.

John Calvin agrees with this idea of “newness” in commenting on the various verses that speak of a new song. He describes this newness as “rare and choice”, “exquisite and not ordinary”, “singular and worthy of remembrance”, “not one which was common”, “unusual and extraordinary”, “singular or uncommon”, “rare and unusual” and “distinguish[ed] from those with which the saints commonly and daily praised God”.

Matthew Poole similarly talks of this newness as “renewed”, “fresh”, “new matter or occasion for a song”, “new and great occasion” and “new mercies”. How many new occasions does God give us for renewed praise to our God?

But maybe these are just Psalm-singing Presbyterians from centuries ago? The modern Anglican Derek Kidner also describes this “newness” as “freshness” in his comments on these various Psalms.

In commenting on Psalm 96:1, he says, “The new song (cf. on 33:3) is not simply a piece newly composed, though it naturally includes such, but a response that will match the freshness of His mercies, which are ‘new every morning’.” Here he does not draw away from the fact that David’s song was one newly composed for the occasion in question (nor does Poole or I), but he emphasises “the freshness of His mercies, which are ‘new every morning’.”

The late 19^th Century, hymn-singing Baptist, Charles Spurgeon similarly states the following:

“We ought to make every hymn of praise a new song. To keep up the freshness of worship is a great thing, and in private it is indispensable. Let us not present old worn-out praise, but put new life, and soul, and heart, into every song, since we have new mercies every day, and see new beauties in the work and word of our LORD.”

Spurgeon goes on to quote Augustine and others who take the same interpretation. It is worth noting Diodati’s comment that Spurgeon quotes: “sung with such fervency of affections as novelties usually bring with them.”

New Songs for New Creatures

In commenting on the new song of the nations (Psalm 96), Spurgeon further comments:

“Men are made new creatures and their song is new also. The names of Baalim are no more on their lips, the wanton music of Ashtaroth ceases; the foolish ditty and the cruel war song are alike forgotten; the song is holy, heavenly, pure, and pleasant.”

The Exultation of Victory

Derek Kidner, in commenting on Psalm 144:9, also emphasises the hope of victory that the “new song” expresses. The New Geneva (or Reformation) Study Bible similarly states, “Often such ‘new’ psalms are found in contexts of victorious war and can be seen as shouts of victory.”

Singing a New Song, not Composing One

It is a fact that the Psalms were new songs when they were composed, but this is not an exhortation for us to compose a new song. The Psalmist calls us to sing his new songs, but he does not command us to compose new ones ourselves. This is an important distinction.

Nor is he calling us to only sing songs that are new; clearly this would be absurd and irrational, and is contrary to the commandments to sing the Psalms.

For us, the purpose should be that we are filled with the joy and freshness of God’s mercies, and I believe that it is really this newness that the Psalmist is pointing us to, and what he is calling us to join with him in. Let us join him in singing his new songs, the old Psalms, “with such fervency of affections as novelties usually bring with them.”

A New World of Fresh Mercies

Matthew Henry comments that the Psalmist entered a “new world” of “fresh mercies”. Often when God mightily delivers us from the old, long-endured burden of affliction, it is as if we entered a new world. The song of deliverance, although used many times before (like the Psalmist), becomes for us a new song because of the freshness of God’s mercies toward us.

When we sing of a “new song” in these Psalms, we should not think, “What new song should I compose today?” or “What newly-composed song should I sing?” but “How new and fresh are God’s mercies to me! What a place of freedom and joy I find myself in through my Saviour Jesus! Let me sing this old Psalm with the fresh joy of salvation!”

Let us constantly remember:

‘Through the LORD’s mercies we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not; they are new every morning! Great is your faithfulness! “The LORD is my portion,” says my soul, “Therefore I hope in Him!”’ (Lam. 3:22-24)

Continued...

Psalms, Hymns and Spiritual Songs: Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16

2008-09-14T16:52:00.006+01:00

Psalms, Psalms and Psalms?

Historical Presbyterians, Baptists and Congregationalists know that we must only worship God in the way that He commands, but how can one justify singing man-made hymns in worship? Where does God ask us to compose our own songs and sing them to Him?

Often an appeal is made to Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16:

“Paul tells us to sing ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’. It doesn’t just say ‘psalms’, it also says ‘hymns and spiritual songs’, so we can sing other songs than the Book of Psalms.”

“You Psalms-only guys make Paul say that ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual songs’ are ‘psalms, psalms and psalms’? That’s ridiculous!”

These statements are due to a lack of familiarity with how the Bible uses these terms. This brief study is an attempt to shed some light on what Paul actually meant.

It may surprise some people to know that Psalms-only adherents (e.g. historic Presbyterians, Baptists and Congregationalists, and the Early Church) don’t believe that “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” are “psalms, psalms and psalms”. So what are they?

What Do the Greek Terms Mean?

Firstly, let’s remember that Paul was writing in Greek, not English. In today’s world, when we talk about ‘hymns’, we mean songs other than the Psalms, but it is illogical to apply our modern English usage to the Greek of Paul’s day. What did Greeks mean by these words?

Psalms

The word “psalm” is not exclusive to the Bible. Today, we talk about ‘psalms’ as the Book of Psalms in the Bible, but to the Greek-speaking peoples ‘psalmos’ could be applied to any song that was accompanied by string-instruments by derivation from the Greek word for plucking. This term came to have a more generalised meaning over time.

Hymns

A ‘hymn’, or ‘hymnos’, was a song of praise, usually to deities or heroes. In English, we refer to Christians songs outside of the Book of Psalms by this term, but the Greeks, and even the Greek-speaking Jews and Christians, didn’t make such a distinction by this term.

Spiritual Songs

‘Songs’ is a general term, but it is specifically defined in this context as “spiritual”, although the Greek grammar allows for the adjective “spiritual” to apply to all three nouns.

These three terms in and of themselves say nothing about what Paul was referring to. Indeed, if it wasn’t in the Bible, it could apply to the entire repertoire of songs that one could come across in life. However, it is in the Bible, so how do the Scriptures use these terms?

The Greek Version of the Book of Psalms

The Greek version on the Old Testament was known as the Septuagint, referring to the 70 scholars who were supposed to have translated the original Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. How the Septuagint uses the terms “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” is important because this was the Bible used by the NT Christians, and many of the Apostles’ quotations of the OT in the NT show their extensive use of this version.

It was the title that these scholars gave to the Hebrew Sepher Tehillim, “Psalmoi”, which gives us the title of the “Book of Psalms” in our English Bibles. However, in this “Psalmoi”, the individual songs are categorised using the three terms, “psalms, hymns and songs”. The Book of Psalms isn’t just Psalms!

Psalms, Hymns and Songs as Titles

In our English Bibles, we will see titles to many of the Psalms: only 34 don’t have any. However, in the Septuagint there were even more titles with only 2 lacking a title. In this Greek version (not necessarily our English Bibles), 67 titles include the word ‘psalm’, 6 include the word ‘hymn’ (Psalms 6, 54, 55, 61, 67 and 76) and 35 the word ‘song’. Even some of those that were entitled “hymnos” in the Greek should more accurately have been translated as “psalmos”, but the fact the Greek translators used the word “hymnos” shows the interchangeableness of these two terms to Greek Jews and Christians.

Frequently, these terms are used in groups, such as “a psalm of a song”, “a song of a psalm”, “a psalm, a song”, “in psalms a song”, “in hymns a psalm” and “in hymns, a psalm, a song”. Note that the Seventy referred to some of the Psalms as “a psalm in the hymns” or “a psalm and a song in the hymns”. They referred to the collection of Psalms as “the hymns”.

Here I refer to the titles, but all three terms are also used in the body of the Psalms themselves.

Psalms, Hymns and Songs in the Psalms

In the text of the Psalms themselves, the terms “hymn” and “song” (together with their cognate verbs and substantives) are used throughout as descriptive of the Psalms, e.g. “He put into my mouth a new song, a HYMN to our God” (Psalm 40:3).

At the end of Psalm 72, the Septuagint says, “The HYMNS of David, the son of Jesse, are ended”, presumably referring to all the Psalms up to that point, or something similar.

One of the most interesting texts in the Septuagint Psalms is Psalm 137:3, which reads, “There they who took us captive demanded of us words of SONGS, and they led us away said, ‘Chant us a HYMN out of the SONGS of Zion.’” Clearly the Songs of Zion were the Book of Psalms, but they were also hymns. The Psalmist goes on to call these "the LORD's song".

The Hebrew “Book of Hymns”

Although the Seventy entitled the Greek version of the Psalms as “Psalmoi”, they would have been more accurate to have translated it as “The Book of Hymns” because the Hebrew title was Sepher Tehillim, and the equivalent of Tehillim in Greek was ‘hymnoi”.

It is only traditionalism from the Greek usage that means that we call the book “Psalms” and not more accurately from the Hebrew “Hymns”.

Psalms, Hymns and Songs in the Rest of the OT and Apocrypha

In 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah (and elsewhere) the Psalms are referred to as hymns or songs, and the singing of the Psalms is referred to as “hymning”.

In the Septuagint Apocrypha, the same terminology is used in Ecclestiasticus, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

Clearly, the Greek Christians would have been familiar with the Psalms being “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs”. Everyone was calling them hymns and songs (apart from modern English-speakers!).

Psalms Spoken of as Hymns by Jews and Christians

The Songs and Hymns of the Greek-speaking Jews

The fact that the Hebrew title for the Psalms should really have been translated “The Book of Hymns” is interesting when one considers the use of “in hymns, a psalm”, and also the way that the Greek-speaking Jews referred to the Book of Psalms. Two of the best-known unbelieving Jews who spoke Greek are Philo and Josephus.

Philo never used the term “psalmos” in reference to the Psalms, but “hymnos”. This amazing absence of the term “psalmos” in his writings has caused some scholars to speculate that some Greek versions of the Psalms were actually (and more appropriately) entitled “Hymnoi”, rather than “Psalmoi”.

The Early Church Hymns

As McNaughter says, not only the Greek-speaking Jews, but the Early Greek Church also referred to the Psalms as hymns, citing the Apostolic Constitutions, Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Eusebius, Hilary, Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and Cassian.

When Emperor Domitian burned huge quantities of Bibles and Psalters during his persecution of the Christians, where were the man-made hymnals? When the Early Church authors wrote their multitude of letters and books, where are the hymns? They do not exist. How can this be, if man-made hymnody was the early Christian practice?

The Middle Age and Beyond

McNaughter states, “Testimonies from the Middle Ages could be multiplied at great length, but Bede, ‘the Venerable,’ gives their gist when he speaks of the whole Psalter as called ‘Liber Hymnorum” by universal consent. Thereafter, through the Reformation period and down to modern times, the Psalms are spoken of incessantly as hymns.” This is no surprise as hymns are songs of praise, especially directed to deity. Is the Book of Psalms a collection of hymns? Yes.

The New Testament Use of Psalms and Hymns

The Hallel (Matthew 26:30; Mark 14:26)

When Jesus and His disciples finished the Last Supper, they “hymned.” It is generally accepted that they followed the Jewish practice at the Passover in singing Psalms 113 – 118, which is known as the Hallel. It seems that the singing of these Psalms is referred to here as singing hymns.

Singing in Prison (Acts 16:25)

Paul and Silas prayed and “hymned” to God while imprisoned at Philippi. As they sang from memory, it seems more than likely that they sang the Psalms that they would have learnt in their youth.

Each of You has a Psalm (1 Corinthians 14:26)

It is interesting to note that at the Corinthian worship services, they sang Psalms. There is no mention of man-made hymns, let alone the composition of man-made hymns. Now, admittedly, these “psalms” could have been man-made, but the natural use of the term is that they were the Canonical Psalms. There is certainly no evidence of man-made hymnody either here or anywhere else in the NT.

Hymning in the Psalms (Hebrews 2:12)

In quoting Psalm 22:22, the writer to the Hebrews says, “…I will hymn to you.” So, again, to the distinction between psalms and hymns is blurred.

One could look at further instances of the use of psalms and hymns in the NT, but these examples give an idea that our modern use of the word “hymn” as songs to God distinct from the Book of Psalms is foreign to the NT.

Jewish Parallelism

We may say that Paul should have said “psalms” and left at like that, but we impose our own meaning of “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” on him. The same goes for the titles of the Psalms”: in 12 of them psalms and songs are put together. Isn’t this all a bit superfluous? Isn’t a psalm a song? Again, this shows the distinction between modern English-speakers and Jews. We should remember this distinction and take it into our interpretations.

“Doesn’t it seem a bit of a mouthful?” one may say, but the Jews weren’t British or American, they like using long parallelisms in their speech. In 1 Kings 2:2, David charged Solomon before he died:

“to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His judgements, and His testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses”.

Again, in Deuteronomy 30:16 (and elsewhere), Moses says something similar:

“to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgements”

“Why doesn’t they just say obey God’s commandments?” says the modern Evangelical. David and Moses were a bit more poetic than that. These are all commandments, but there are different categories in God’s commandments, just as there are three categories for the Canonical Psalms. One is further reminded of the various categories that David applies in Psalm 119.

Similarly, in Acts 2:22, Peter (a Jew) speaks as follows:

“Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs…”

Peter could have said “Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles” and left it at that, but he didn’t. He was more Jewish than us (funny that!).

Paul was a Jew and spoke like a Jew, and wrote “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” because he was Jewish, not because he was distinguishing the Spirit-inspired Psalms from man-made products.

Songs from the Spirit, not Songs from the Pub

As stated previously, the word “spiritual” could apply to all three terms, but I am inclined to think that it refers to “songs” only. In Ephesians 5:18, Paul was exhorting his readers to be different from the unbelievers who wasted their lives in drinking and singing drunken songs to Bacchus:

“And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit, speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord”

The heathen sang songs when they were filled with wine, but we sing songs too when we are filled with the Holy Spirit: these songs are spiritual.

What does the word “spiritual” or “pneumatikais” mean? We think of “spiritual” as being religious, but the word has a far stronger meaning than this. As Dr. B. B. Warfield of Princeton said (The Presbyterian Review, July 1880):

‘Of the twenty-five instances in which the word ["spiritual"] occurs in the New Testament, in no single case does it sink even as low in its reference as the human spirit; and in twenty-four of them it is derived from "spirit" (pneuma), the Holy Ghost. In this sense of belonging to, or determined by, the Holy Spirit, the New Testament usage is uniform.’ ‘The appropriate translation for it in each case is “Spirit-given,” or “Spirit-led”, or “Spirit-determined”.’

These songs are given by the Holy Spirit, they are not merely religious. Some would argue that the hymns of Charles Wesley, for example, are given by the Spirit, but is this really what Spirit-given means in this context? I think that “pneumatikais” is too strong a term for mere man-made hymnody.

What about the psalms, hymns and songs of Scripture, including those which weren’t included by the Spirit in the Book of Psalms? Were they merely man-made products – “spiritual”, but not inspired? None of them were like modern hymns: they were either personal utterances of praise (some of which may not properly be termed songs, but are nonetheless praise) and not meant for public worship (e.g. the ‘Songs’ of Hannah, Jonah and Hezekiah), or they were given for public worship in the Temple or Synagogue, but only produced by prophets and prophetesses (e.g. Moses, David and Habakkuk).

It is also noteworthy that many of them were produced by a specially-inspired class within the Levites who were devoted to God’s praise (1 Chron. 16:4-7), e.g. Asaph and the Sons of Korah. It is also noteworthy that just as some prophecies ended-up in the Canon of Scripture and many did not; so also some inspired songs made it into the Canon-within-the-Canon, i.e. the Book of Psalms, and some did not.

Does God command us to compose our own “spiritual” songs for public worship, or are there examples of it in the Scriptures? The silence is deafening. The Spirit-given songs are all inspired. We have no reason to believe that “spiritual” refers to anything else.

The Word of Christ

Not only are these songs given by the Spirit, but they are the Word of Christ:

“Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.”

How does the Word of Christ dwell richly within us? By teaching and admonishing one another through singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs together. These “psalms, hymns and songs given by the Spirit” must be “the Word of Christ”. This makes sense if these terms refer to the Canonical Psalms, but can even Charles Wesley’s hymns be spoken of in this way?

Psalms, Hymns and Hymns?

If “psalms” refer to the Book of Psalms, and “hymns” refer to man-made productions, then what are “spirituals songs”? Is Paul saying “psalms, hymns and hymns”? What sense does that make? Those who ridicule us with the absurd interpretation that we say that these are “psalms, psalms and psalms” should consider the implication of their own interpretation when they hold that “psalms” is the only term that refers to songs from the Book of Psalms.

The only interpretation of these terms that make sense are that they collectively are an expansive term for the Book of Psalms, with the various categories of song within it.

Are the Scriptures Anything Else but Scripture?

It may be argued by some that although psalms, hymns and spiritual songs are different categories of song, and that these categories are found in the Book of Psalms, yet why should we think that they are restricted to this Book; maybe even the songs of the Wesleys could be referred to as “psalms”?

As we have seen previously there are real difficulties with this: are they Spirit-given in the Scriptural sense? Are they the Word of Christ? Should we sing songs to teach each other that are any less inspired than what we use in reading from the pulpit?

Another fundamental issue with this interpretation is: how do the Scriptures use these terms? We should not ask merely how they are used outside of Scripture. For example, when we read that the Bereans “searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so”, do we think that these were writings in general, even though the term could be understood in that sense? Why is that? It is because we know from the use of this term in the Bible what is meant by it.

Even so, we know from the use of the terms “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” that the Bible refers to the Book of Psalms when referring to the congregational worship of God’s people. We have no reason to understand it any other way.

No Warrant for Singing Man-made Hymnody

All the Scriptural evidence points to the “psalms, hymns and spiritual songs” being the various categories of song found in the Canonical Psalms. There is no evidence that hymns are man-made as distinct from the Book of Psalms, nor is there evidence any where is Scripture of the composition or singing of man-made productions in when Christians meet together for worship. Neither is there evidence in history from the period covered by the Scriptures, nor the period immediately after it.

Those who claim to hold to Biblical worship and seek to worship God as He asks, have no warrant to compose or sing man-made songs. The only logical conclusion is to restrict ourselves to what God has provided in His grace as sufficient for us: the Book of Psalms.

Let us sing "the LORD's song" (Psalm 137:4).

Continued...

Alliance Party Leader and PCI Elder David Ford Participates at Gay Pride Festival

2008-08-15T17:56:00.007+01:00

A video of David Ford, the Leader of the Alliance Party and a ruling elder in the PCI, attacking Iris Robinson's Biblical stance against homosexuality after participating in the Belfast Gay Pride Festival. This elder thinks that homosexuality is no morally different than having a different colour of skin.

China Tries to Surpress Christians during the Olympics

2008-08-15T17:44:00.000+01:00

Pastor Detained for Argeeing to Meet with the BBC's John Simpson
House Church Pastor Arrested and Beaten for Trying to Attend Church with Bush 1
House Church Pastor Arrested and Beaten for Trying to Attend Church with Bush 2

G.I. Williamson on Exclusive Psalmody

2008-08-14T21:10:00.008+01:00

As mentioned in my discussions with Tim, G.I. Williamson wrote a book on Exclusive Psalmody. I'm glad to say that this excellent, succinct study is available on-line here.

I'm may still extract the bit on Ephesians 5:18,19 and Colossians 3:16 and post it on the blog for convenience. (Use "find" on your browser to find the relevant section in the web page linked above.)

Exclusive Psalmody and Singing about Christ

2008-08-10T16:24:00.000+01:00

Just to inform my readers that there is a short discussion on this topic on the comments section of a completely unrelated post here.

Gay Day for California Schools

2008-08-09T15:32:00.000+01:00

Please pray against the evil legislation that has been passed by the Californian Leglislature to have a Gay Day every year in all government schools. See here. Homosexual fanaticism knows no bounds! (I wonder when Christian family day is?)

Working Mums Return to Working from Home

2008-08-09T10:03:00.001+01:00

See this interesting article about how there has been a huge increase in the UK of women returning to working from home to allow them to have more time with their children.

Christ Forbids Calling Religious Leaders "Father"

2008-08-03T16:57:00.012+01:00

It is sad to see in so-called Protestant churches like the Anglican church that in some quarters the fashion has been resurrected of referring to ‘clergymen’ as “Father”. Christ's prohibition against this is abundantly clear:

“The scribes and the Pharisees… love… to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven… But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.” (Matt. 23)

Some argue from Paul's use of the term "father", e.g. 1 Cor.4:14-15, that this practice is allowed, but it is one thing for Paul to consider himself as a father to his spiritual children, and it is another to append the title as Christ condemned.

Paul never called himself, nor was referred to as “Father Paul”. If you love your spiritual children in a fatherly way, and they love you as a father, then that is all good, but Christ doesn’t want you or others to call you, “Father so-and-so”.

“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” (John 14:21)

(See also here and here.)

Continued...

The Second Commandment not Part of the First

2008-08-03T16:53:00.005+01:00

The Reformed and Anglican Churches believe that the commandment against images is the 2nd Commandment, and that the commandment regarding coveting is completely encompassed by the 10th Commandment. The Roman 'Catholic Church', Anglo-Catholics and the Lutherans disagree, and believe that the 2nd is part of the 1st, and that the 10th is divided into two.

I think that it is telling that the Greek Church, the Early Greek authors (e.g. Origen, Athanasius, etc.) and the Early Latin authors (e.g. Jerome, Ambrose, Severus and Augustine) agree with the Reformed/ Anglican division, against the Later Latin Church and the Lutheran semi-Reformation. It is even more telling that the Jews also make the same division, e.g. Josephus and Philo!

It is absurd for the last commandment on coveting to be divided unnaturally. The only rationale for such a division is to avoid the clear intent of the 2nd, i.e. that images are not allowed in worship.

As Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism states: (Q.113):

That this commandment, which has respect to lust, or concupiscence, is one, and not two, is evident

1. From the fact that Moses repeats it in a different order in Ex. 20 : 17, and Deut. 5 : 21, as we have already shown.

2. From the fact that Moses comprehends it in one verse in both of the places to which we have just referred.

3. From the interpretation of Paul, who comprises in one commandment all that Moses says in relation to this subject, when he says, ” I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” (Rom. 7 : 7.)

4. From the fact that the Papists and others are accustomed, in their expositions of this part of the Decalogue, to join together the coveting of our neighbour’s house and wife ; because they, without doubt, perceived that the coveting of our neighbour’s wife, house, and all other things which long to our neighbour, are here forbidden, for one and the same reason. It follows, therefore, either that there is but one precept touching concupiscence, or that there must be as many commandments enumerated, as there are things belonging to our neighbour which we are forbidden to covet.

5. From the authority of the best ancient writers, both among the Jews and Christians, to whom we have referred in our remarks upon the division of the Decalogue.

Moreover, as Christ showed in His Sermon on the Mount, each of the Commandments are archetypal and comprehend all other types of sin (and obedience). If these are archetypal sins, then why divide coveting into two parts? Why have two archetypes of coveting?

Also, it should be noted that the 2nd Commandment forbids all additions to and subtractions from the ordinances of God, as clearly stated elsewhere in Scripture. Idolatry and images are but an archetype of all the corruption of God’s worship by the inventions of men, who think themselves wiser than God, and His Prophets and Apostles!

Continued...

Scottish and Irish Presbyterian Church History Undergoing Update

2008-08-02T14:25:00.000+01:00

My original posts on Scottish and Irish Presbyterian Church History are currently being updated. The original First and Second Reformation period, scanned from Smellie (with some Irish additions) was very basic. The First Reformation post is the first to have been updated here.

English MPs Seek to Force Abortion on N. Ireland

2008-07-24T14:21:00.001+01:00

See here. N. Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are unique in Europe in banning abortion, except to really save a mother's life (see here).

What is the point of devolved government, if N. Ireland's government and people oppose such a fundamental point of law, but the rest of the British can force it on us?

Please pray earnestly and regularly that the attempts of these wicked people may be thwarted.

What's Wrong with the 39 Articles?

2008-07-14T00:14:00.009+01:00

Well, the answer is: not a lot. I agree with almost everything in it verbatim. It is a good, Calvinistic, Evangelical creed, but I thought it would be useful to mention the few areas where I disagree with it:

3. Of the going down of Christ into Hell.
As Christ died for us, and was buried, so also is it to be believed, that he went down into Hell.

I disagree with the mistaken interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 that believes that Christ went down into Hell.

6. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
...And the other Books [the Apocrypha] (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following...

This statement could be understood in the same sense as the better statement in the WCF (which came out of a revision of the 39 Articles), but the implication and the danger is that this statement means that the Apocrypha can be read in Church like Scripture, even though it is seen as inferior to "Canonical" Scripture. This is what has happened in practice and is a logical outworking of Anglicanism's semi-reformed view of sola Scriptura.

Moreover, the 39 Articles don't claim that the Holy Scriptures are the infallible and inerrant Word of God.

7. Of the Old Testament.
...the Law given from God by Moses... nor the Civil precepts thereof ought of necessity to be received in any commonwealth...

This is a more imbalanced (in my opinion) statement concerning the position of the Civil Law of Moses, compared to WCF 19:4: "To them also, as a body politic, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require."

There is a general equity in the Civil Law that does make necessary requirements, and that equity is more than moral precepts, it is also equitable penology, for equity is about civil justice, not merely morality. Interestingly, the English Reformers Bishops Hooper and Latimer agree.

20. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies... yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written... it ought not to decree any thing against the same...

Here is the great difference between historical Presbyterianism/ Independancy (a.k.a. Puritanism/ Reformed) and Anglicanism: the Regulative Principle. We say you may only rule the Church as Scripture ordains, they say that you may create offices, etc., as you please. We say that you may only worship God as He has asked, they say that you may have any rites that you like as long as they are not forbidden. (Of course, most modern Presbyterian and Baptists are really Anglicans/Lutherans and they don't even know it!)

21. Of the Authority of General Councils.
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes...

This is Erastianism. In opposition to this, the Puritans stated in WCF 31:2, "...the ministers of Christ, of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their churches, may meet together in such assemblies."

34. Of the Traditions of the Church.
It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word...

This repeats the error of Article 20 contra the Regulative Principle. Of course, this can be given a Reformed interpretation because it is against God's Word to add to or take from what He has ordained. However, this is not how it is interpreted, so we must understand it with the intent of the framers.

36. Of Consecration of Bishops and Ministers.
The Book of Consecration of Bishops, and Ordering of Priests and Deacons... whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rites of that Book... we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

Bishops, priests and deacons, as conceived by the Anglican Church are unbiblical offices. Bishops/ overseers are the same as elders/ presbyters and there is parity between all elders, and deacons have a temporal caring and administrative role, not a ruling and teaching ministry.

37. Of the Power of the Civil Magistrates.
The King's Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil...

The 1801 CoE amendment rightly removes the power of the Civil Magistrate over the Church, but the CoI still has the original 1571 rendering as above. Again, this is Erastian.

By the way, what every Irish Anglican should read is the far better Irish Articles of 1615, which were the confession of Irish Anglicanism, before the English Church imposed its will, and which had a profound influence on the WCF. (Good ol' Ussher! Pity he allowed his Erastianism to get in the way!)

Continued...

Irish Evangelical Anglican Site

2008-07-14T00:03:00.002+01:00

For those who are interested in the state of the Church of Ireland, Reform Ireland is a really good way of finding out what is happening. The site has a biblically-balanced approach to commentary, which is to be commended.

Gene Robinson Publically Called to Repent

2008-07-14T00:00:00.000+01:00

We give thanks to God that an ordinary Christian has had the courage to speak-up against the wicked heretic and pervert, Gene Robinson, at a public meeting. See here.

What the Ungodly Want from Preachers

2008-07-06T22:37:00.000+01:00

A prophecy concerning Williams, Sentamu and Harper from Isaiah 30:9-11:

This is a rebellious people,
Lying children,
Children who will not hear the law of the LORD;
Who say to the seers, “Do not see,”
And to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us right things;
Speak to us smooth things, prophesy deceits.
Get out of the way,
Turn aside from the path,
Cause the Holy One of Israel
To cease from before us.”

R.C. Sproul Turns to Six Day Creation (at Last!)

2008-07-05T23:10:00.000+01:00

See here.

English Archbishops Respond to GAFCON/ FoCA

2008-07-05T22:54:00.001+01:00

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, responds here to GAFCON/ FoCA, and John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, responds here. (I suppose the Archbishop of Armagh's statement about gay union may be part of his response.)

I guess Jesus' and John's response to the Pharisees ("brood of vipers"), and Paul's response to the Judaizers in Galatians ("anathema") and elsewhere, must seem a little "ungracious" to Sentamu. I suppose he should get Williams to counsel them in "appreciative conversation" and "interpretative charity" in such grey areas as justification. After all, why should such things divide us?

TV Programme on Judaism

2008-07-05T12:50:00.000+01:00

Very interesting programme on Rabbinical Judaism that I watched at breakfast today. This is mainly based around the former owner of the Faith shoe shop chain (Mr Faith). Again, it emphasises how many additions to God's Word that the Pharisees added. (Modern Jews are the descendants of the Jews who rejected the Messiah for the teaching of the Pharisees. ) Just shows how far things get out of hand, when you turn your back on the Regulative Principle/ Sola Scriptura.

We may allow Gay Unions says Irish Anglican Head

2008-07-05T10:16:00.007+01:00

It is sad to think how the Church of my maternal ancestors has declined so markedly. See here. The article shows the Archbishop's heretical hermeneutic.

I recently got a copy of the 2004 CoI Book of Common Prayer. When the CoI was separated from the CoE in 1878 it removed readings from the Apocrypha from the Lectionary. It is sad to see that in 2004 they have been added back in, along with an alternative lectionary from the Romanists (just to show that we're "all one"). Also, in the new marriage service, the vows by both parties seem to be the same, and the promise to obey and serve by the wife has been removed.

Original Baptists were Exclusive Psalmists

2008-06-29T17:03:00.007+01:00

We worshipped with Emmanuel Church (Evangelical and Reformed) in Salisbury, a Calvinistic Baptist Church (1689 SLBCF) on our holidays, who are one of a few English churches that are Exclusive Psalmist (unaccompanied). We spent a pleasant Sabbath afternoon with Malcolm Watts, the pastor, and his wife, who graciously granted us hospitality.

In conversation with Mr Watts, he told me that many Baptists consider Salisbury to be almost semi-Presbyterian, but he pointed out that they were ignorant of original Baptist belief. The original Baptists were Exclusive Psalmist and the first Baptist to introduce man-made hymns was Benjamin Keach (in 1685, I think). (By the way, when he tried to introduce hymns, his congregation first of all overruled him and then later split.)

He also pointed out that consistent adherents of the 1689 SLBCF must be Exclusive Psalmists, just like consistent adherents of the WCF, as they were all Exclusive Psalmists at the time (apart from benjamin Keach, clearly). Note, however, that the 1689 uses the phrase "teaching and admonishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in our hearts to the Lord", where the WCF says, "singing of psalms with grace in the heart". Note that the 1689 has chosen to use a more Scriptural phrase. As Mr Watts pointed out, the argument wasn't over psalms-only versus man-made hymns, but whether the Psalms should be sung at all because metrical versions have to deviate slightly from the best prose translation.

I asked about John Bunyan. It turns out that he, like some 19th Century Presbyterians, produced Christian songs as poetry and never used them in worship as such.

By the way, as I understand it, 1820 was the year that a Baptist church first used musical instruments in worship. (See posts here and here.)

Continued...

Conservative Anglican GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration

2008-06-29T15:02:00.012+01:00

As some of you may know the latest episode in the long-overdue use of discipline in the Anglican Church has been the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem. The Church Council (which it effectively is) has issued its final statement in which they not only declare an Evangelical Anglican statement of faith, but declare the following, amongst others:

1. A form of independence from the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (which they say has always existed, although theory and practice are different): "While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

2. The formation of a new ecclesiastical organisation, "Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans" (now being referred to as "FoCA"), with a new Primates' Council (seemingly as an alternative to the current Primates' Meeting at Lambeth, etc.) within the Anglican communion.

3. Rejection of Liberal teaching as "heterodox" and a "false gospel".

4. Rejection of "the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed."

4. Encouragement of the ongoing excommuication of Liberals, including the formation of a new Anglican province in North America by the GAFCON Primates' Council.

5. Belief that the Anglican Church will continue to be "reformed around the biblical gospel and mandate to go into all the world and present Christ to the nations."

6. Continued rejection of homosexuality.

We rejoice that Evangelical Anglicans are at last beginning to seek reformation in their church through starting to use discipline and uniting around godly confessions such as this. May God bless this attempt by our dear brethren to glorify His name!

One hopes that this a purely Evangelical movement, but questions arise such as :

a) What is an Evangelical?

b) What will GAFCON adherents mean by the Evangelical-sounding phrases in the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration?

c) Why is there a lack of statements excluding salvation by works or sacramentalism? (Although how an Anglo-Catholic could adhere to the Jerusalem Declaration is hard to see, but anyone familiar with Anglo-Catholics and "Evangelical" Romanists have seen this done before.) They may argue that the 1662 BCP excludes Sacramentalism, but does it really? The 1662 BCP is an ambiguous document at several points, and is in serious need of revision even to align it with Evangelical Anglicanism.

d) Are Evangelical Anglicans also separating from Anglo-Catholic Traditionalists/ Conservatives, who also preach another gospel? (E.g. Jensen's statement about "the sleeping giant that is evangelical Anglicanism and orthodox Anglicanism", i.e. not Evangelical Anglicanism, or Evangelical and Orthodox Anglicanism, but "evangelical Anglicanism" and "orthodox Anglicanism" as if one can be Orthodox but not Evangelical. Also, Stephen Noll's definition of Anglican Orthodoxy in which he states that it consists of both Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics.)

The sad fact is that Anglicanism as a Traditionalist system that does not adhere to the Regulative Priniciple is disobedient to God and has the seeds of its own destruction within it. (Just as when so-called Presbyterians slide from Biblical Presbyterianism into Committeeism, etc.)

God grant that He may enlighten us all as to our defects and sins, and in particular that He might be merciful to our Anglican brethren so this might be a Third Reformation for the Anglican Church leading them back to the attainments of the Second Puritan) Reformation (esp. the Westminster Confession of Faith) and beyond, so that they may adopt a Biblical Church government, doctrine, worship, evangelism, etc.

God grant that our Anglican brethren may see that their previous tolerance of and communion with heretics, and lack of discipline has led to the whole homosexual fracas, and that they may repent completely of it by rejecting Anglo-Catholics, etc., as heretics also.

God grant that 'Evangelical' Anglicans may see that the ordination of women and Ecumenism, etc., are as much departures from Holy Scripture as homosexuality. God grant that they may also reject Arminianism and Charismaticism.

God grant reformation to the Reformed Churches throughout the World as well, so that we might be more Biblical (holy) in all aspects of our living and ecclesiastical organisation.

God grant that Evangelicals within unorthodox, so-called Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptist denominations may also separate themselves from Liberals and heretics, and commit themselves to true, Biblical communion.

For full details see here and here.

Continued...

Against Modalism 12: The Father and the Son both Dwell in the Believer

2008-05-21T13:42:00.001+01:00

John 14:23
Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Here we see both the Father and the Son making there home in the believer. Clearly this is not the humanity of the Son, for man's spirit is finite, so it must be His divinity, and yet both the divinity of the Son and the Father make their home in the believer. (We also know elsewhere that the Holy Spirit dwells in believers.)

This shows that the Son and the Father are distinct, divine persons.

Trichet Proposes an Alternative

2008-05-20T05:25:00.004+01:00

Jean-Claude Trichet disagrees with Soros that central banks should explictily control house prices, but he and others propose a plausible alternative. See here.

If only either plan had been implemented instead of trusting the greed of the few over the needs of the many! Talk about closing the barn door after the horse has bolted!

The biggest thing that Gordon could do to reduce is to cut the cost of fuel by reducing tax. 85% of our petrol costs is tax!

George Soros on the Economy

2008-05-20T05:05:00.000+01:00

At last someone speaks sense. George Soros, the famous billionaire investor, makes the sort of comments to the BBC that I've wanted to say for ages: "He said that the central banks should explicitly target asset bubbles such as housing booms and try to stop them getting out of control, which is something they have resisted doing so far."

If only he had been Chancellor instead of Gordon Brown! Disturbingly, the insightful Soros also "warned the 'financial bubble' of the last 25 years could be drawing to an end and the post World War II 'super-boom' era could also be over."

Against Modalism 11: Is the Father (or Jesus) Talking to Himself? (Or is Jesus His own Father?)

2008-05-04T17:13:00.006+01:00

John 17
Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You, as You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him. And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. I have glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You have given Me to do. And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

“I have manifested Your name to the men whom You have given Me out of the world. They were Yours, You gave them to Me, and they have kept Your word. Now they have known that all things which You have given Me are from You. For I have given to them the words which You have given Me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came forth from You; and they have believed that You sent Me.

“I pray for them. I do not pray for the world but for those whom You have given Me, for they are Yours. And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine, and I am glorified in them. Now I am no longer in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep through Your name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one as We are. While I was with them in the world, I kept them in Your name. Those whom You gave Me I have kept; and none of them is lost except the son of perdition, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.

“But now I come to You, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have My joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.

“Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father! The world has not known You, but I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me. And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them.”

Please take the time to read this extended prayer from Christ the Son to the Father. Is this really the Father talking to Himself? Or (for other Modalists) is this Jesus talking to Himself? There is a clear, personal distinction between the Son and the Father.

Some Modalists may argue that this is the humanity of Christ talking to God the Father. However, the Son who speaks here was with the Father in eternity (v. 5). This is the one who was loved by the Father in eternity (v. 24).

Modalists complain about us dividing the one person of God into three persons (which we do not, but we believe in three distinct persons in the one being of God), but those who argue that here we have the humanity of Christ praying to the Divinity of the Father heretically divide the person of Christ.

Just to touch upon personal pronouns: here we have I and you, me and you, yours and mine, etc. The first and second persons distinguish between one person (I) and another person (you). This is another reason why Christians are forced by the clear facts of Scripture to believe in the Trinity, even though it may seem a hard thing to understand. We do not twist the facts, because to do so would be to deny the Lord to our own destruction (2 Pet. 2:1; 3:15,16; 1 John 2:22,23).

Read the passage and think about it…

Continued...

Against Modalism 10: A Present Intercessor with the Father

2008-05-04T16:19:00.001+01:00

Mark 16:19
So then, after the Lord had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.

Romans 8:34
Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us.

Hebrews 7:25
Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

Hebrews 8:1
Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens…

1 John 2:1
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

Jesus the Christ has risen to the right hand of God in heaven. What is He doing there? Amongst other things, He is interceding on our behalf as our High Priest and will do so until the end of the World.

However, He is interceding with the Father. He is distinct from the Father. Is the Father interceding with Himself? No, Christ is. This is a problem for the Modalists, because they must divide the person of Christ: the humanity must intercede with the same Deity that indwells Him, that is the Father. For the Trinitarians, the totality of the Son, human and divine, one united person, intercedes with the Father.

Continued...

Ecumenism on Tour!

2008-05-01T23:10:00.004+01:00

Pictured at Belfast International Airport are (l-r) Dr John Finlay, Presbyterian Moderator, Rev Roy Cooper, President of the Methodist Church, Cardinal Seán Brady, Roman Catholic Primate, and Archbishop Alan Harper, Church of Ireland Primate. They are currently visiting 'Christians' in Israel and Palestine to show solidarity and promote peace.

What a sad sight to see a professedly evangelical PCI Moderator in such flagrant fellowship (solidarity?) with an avowed heretic like Brady! May God grant a reformation of the PCI. It just gets worse and worse! Once upon a time it was easier to distinguish Evangelicals and Liberals in the mixed multitude that is the PCI, but now, what is an evangelical?

See also here. If only Finlay had the same aversion to crucifixes!

Church Leaders Fear School Move

2008-04-26T19:49:00.002+01:00

Bit of an old story (4 months) here, but still relevant.

Distinction and Separation in the Trinity

2008-04-24T21:49:00.004+01:00

Why use 'distinction', instead of 'separation' in relation to how the Three Persons subsist in the One Divine Essence? This is a question of semantics, but I prefer, along with most thinking Trinitarians, to use the word 'distinct' as opposed to 'separate' for good reasons.

We prefer not to say that these Persons are separate, lest we undermine the truth that there is one and only God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not separated from each other. This would be Tri-theism, not Trinitarianism. They share the one divine substance (to use feeble, human words), or each one has the fullness of God.

As the Athanasian Creed says:

3. Neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

Note that we also don't "confound the persons": there is a real distinction between them.

And again the Westminster Confession:

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. (WCF 2:3)

As I have stated elsewhere, I don't quote these as having inherent authority, but as expressing what I believe to be Scriptural truth.

Again, this is semantics; if someone says that they believe in separate Persons in the one God, then they probably mean the same thing, but I think that the word 'separate' can be misleading and is not as accurate.

There is an interrelation and unity between the Three Person that is a mystery to us, i.e. it is hidden from us and beyond our knowledge:

"I and My Father are one." (John 10:30)

The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29)

Continued...

Against Modalism 9: The Divine Son Sent by the Father from Heaven to Save the World

2008-04-23T21:30:00.007+01:00

John 3: 13,16,17
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man… For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

John 7:29
But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He sent Me.

1 John 4:14
In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins… And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Saviour of the world.

Here we are told that the Son of Man came down from heaven. He was sent into the World by God – that is God the Father. How can we explain this? Given that we know that the Son is God, then only the Trinitarian view that both the Father and the Son are distinct persons within the Godhead makes any sense.

God in His love sent His only begotten Son to save His people from their sins (Matt. 1:21) and with them the rest of Creation (Romans 8:19-22).

John 6:38-51,69
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven... What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?”

Again, we see in this passage that the Son was sent from heaven by the Father; for heaven was where “He was before”. The Son is not merely the humanity of Christ; neither can He be the Father in another manifestation, for it is the Father who sends the Son. So again, we see that only the Trinitarian view of God makes sense in light of this evidence.

John 3:31-36
He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.

Moreover, in this next passage, not only do we see the Son sent from heaven from the Father, but we see the Spirit as distinct from God. How can this be? The Father stands here in the economic Trinity on behalf of the whole Godhead in sending the Son to bring everlasting life and giving the Son the Holy Spirit to sustain Him in His humanity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, but the One God, committed to His people's salvation.

Continued...

Against Modalism 8: The Eternal Son 3

2008-04-23T00:06:00.002+01:00

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

Here again we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

‘Ah, but what about “one God, the Father”?’ say the Modalists. Fair point, but given the evidence against the Modalist position, can it really be affirming their position?

The reality is that this statement says too much. Modalists come in various shapes and sizes (modes?). For those who believe that there is one Divine Person who is manifested in different forms, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, there is a problem. If God is restricted to “the Father” in this sense, then God must be restricted to the Father mode, i.e. there can be no God the Son mode, nor any God the Holy Spirit mode.

Even for other Modalists, a similar issue exists: whatever way you try to use a “God = The Father” as opposed to “God = The Son” or “God = The Holy Spirit”, you’re still placing a restriction that destroys your ‘Oneness’ theology.

So what does “one God, the Father” mean? The word Father in relation to God is used in various senses: one is the Divine Person who bears a relation of Father to the Divine Person called the Son; another is of God as the Father of His adopted children (believers); and lastly, God as ultimate progenitor of all things, or God as Creator.

In this last sense, God is described in this passage as Father, or ultimate progenitor. He is the one ”of whom are all things”. This is especially relevant to the pagans in the preceding verses, who generally conceived of an Ultimate ‘One’ who is Father, or Source, of all (Acts 17:28,29), including the multitude of so-called gods; yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him. There are no other ‘gods’.

To those who use this verse to deny the deity of Christ, they should consider these verses as a sample: Matt. 1:23; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:12; 2 Peter 1:1; 1 John 5:20.

Again, lest my main point be lost in answering the objection, here we see Jesus Christ described as the one through whom are all things and yet He is described as distinct from the Father, so again His pre-existence is affirmed.

Continued...

Book on Oneness Theology

2008-04-22T21:50:00.004+01:00

I've come across this book in my investigations. It can be previewed here and it looks like a valuable resource for anyone considering the debate between Trinitarians and Modalists. (I regret to say that I don't have it as yet!)

The same gentleman has a website on the subject here.

Against Modalism 7: The Eternal Son 2

2008-04-13T17:02:00.010+01:00

Romans 8:3
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh…

As far as I understand it, Modalists usually regard “the Son” as the human manifestation of God, when the Father became incarnate in the humanity of Jesus of Nazareth. This humanity is what was begotten in time by the divine power of God in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

However, in this passage we see the Son being sent in the likeness of sinful flesh. Clearly “the Son” is personally distinct from the Father (otherwise how could God send Him?), and the Son existed separately from human flesh and prior to His Incarnation (otherwise what does sending the Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh” mean?).

John 5:18
Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

It is in the Son’s relation to the Father as the divine Son that He is equal with God. It is this divine Sonship, not a supernatural birth produced without a human father that is the problem for the Jews (and for Modalists).

John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, states here that He came down from heaven. This cannot refer to the humanity of Christ, yet it cannot refer to the Father as He also says that He was sent to do the will of Him who sent Him. He who sent Him and whose will He did is personally distinct from this divine being from heaven.

Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law…

Again, this passage repeats the fact that God the Father sent the Son from heaven, and that this Son was not the humanity, because why would it be remarkable to say that a human was born of a woman?

1 John 1:1-3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life — the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us — that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ.

Jesus as the ”Word of Life” was ”from the beginning” and thus eternal, and yet He was distinct from the Father (”with the Father”).

Isaiah 48:12-16
”Listen to Me, O Jacob, and Israel, My called: I am He, I am the First, I am also the Last. Indeed My hand has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has stretched out the heavens. When I call to them, they stand up together.
All of you, assemble yourselves, and hear! Who among them has declared these things? The LORD loves him; He shall do His pleasure on Babylon, and His arm shall be against the Chaldeans.
I, even I, have spoken; yes, I have called him, I have brought him, and his way will prosper.
Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

Here “the First" and "the Last”, the One who “laid the foundation of the earth” and “stretched out the heavens”, the One who speaks here in the days of Isaiah, and who says, “from the time that it was, I was there”, says, ”And now the Lord GOD and His Spirit have sent Me.”

Clearly this is the eternal God, the creator of all things, and yet He is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit, and is sent by them. This is the eternal, divine Son, not His temporal humanity, which accords perfectly with the doctrine of the Trinity.

Hebrews 1:1,2
God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds…

The Son is the one through whom the Father made the worlds. “The Son” as the Son was present at the creation of the universe and was distinct from the Father.

Hebrews 1:5-8
For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”?
But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.”
And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your kingdom.”

The Firstborn is brought into the world. This clearly refers to the Son existing prior to His birth and as having an origin in heaven.

Again, to the Son the Father says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…” The Son is not merely the humanity of Christ. This is not Thomas speaking to the God-man, but the Father referring to the Son.

(Modalists often use v. 5 to claim that the Son is born only in time. Some Trinitarians would say that the “today” is in eternity, e.g. Augustine. I would be inclined to think that it does refer to His Incarnation given the context of Psalm 2 concerning the Mediatorial Kingship of the Messiah. A temporal birth (which He clearly had) does not preclude an eternal begottenness. Trinitarians do not use the term Son to refer only to His divinity, but the totality of who the Son is: His undivided personhood as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. However, my focus is not on this verse, but the other ones.)

Hebrews 7:3
…without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God…

Here Melchizedek is compared with the Son in that he almost appears to be eternal. Melchizedek of course isn’t, but the Son clearly is from this passage.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

Although this is a disputed text, yet I am personally persuaded that it is original and thus I quote it. (See here for an example argument.) It is clear what it says.

If you reject the above reading because of a belief in the superiority of the Alexandrian text-type or eclectic considerations, then try this for an Alexandrian reading:

John 1:18
No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

Need I say more?

Continued...

Against Modalism 6: The Eternal Son 1

2008-04-09T21:59:00.007+01:00

One of the great distinctions between generic Modalism (apologises to Modalists who differ) and Trinitarianism is the following:

Modalists believe that God the Father became incarnate in the humanity of Jesus Christ and that the Son became begotten in time at the point of the Incarnation. The Son is the "incarnate mode" of the Father. God is eternally one person.
Trinitarians believe that the one God has eternally consisted of three distinct persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son has existed eternally as God. Only the Son became incarnate, when "the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continues to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, forever." "Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul,being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin." (Westminster Shorter Catechism Questions 21, 22).

I will try to show from Scripture that this orthodox belief is correct and the Modalist heresy is wrong. This will be a fairly simple exposition of these texts as I'm not writing a book, nor do I have the time.

John 1:1-3,14
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Here we see that there was a person called “The Word” who was with God and yet was God. The Word is thus shown as both God and yet distinct from God. This Word is the only begotten of the Father, i.e. the eternal being called “the Word” is not the Father.

Who is “the Word”? Verse 14 and the rest of John 1 make clear that the eternal Word was made flesh as Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God.

Also, all things were made through the Word, so if the Son only came to exist at the point that Jesus’ humanity was conceived, then how could this be?

This shows both that the Son is eternal, very God and yet distinct from the Father.

See also here.

Colossians 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.

Again, all things were made through the Firstborn, so the Son did not begin to exist at the Incarnation. This repeats the theology of John 1, that all things were created by, through and for Him. Not only did the Son (as distinct from the Father) create all things, but all things were created through Him.Who was creating through the Son? It was the Father.

See also here.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Christ was with the Father before the World existed. He is shown as present in eternity and yet distinct from the Father.

See also here.

Philippians 2:5-11
Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Christ was “in the form of God” and yet “equal with God” before His Incarnation. He was divine, distinct from God in some sense and yet equal with God. This glory that He had with the Father from all eternity he laid aside to take upon himself the “form of a bondservant” and “likeness of man” in His humiliation.

Paul clearly quote from Isaiah 45:23,24, where Yahweh says, “[T]o Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall take an oath.” All will declare Christ to be the Lord, or ‘Kurios’ in the Greek, which was the translation of the Hebrew ‘Yahweh’ in the Greek version of the Old Testament, due to the sensitivity about the divine name Yahweh among the Jews.

So Yahweh declares before the Incarnation something about Himself, which will happen in the person of Christ. This will be to the glory of the Father as distinct from Jesus Christ, whom all will confess is Yahweh.

All of this aligns perfectly with Trinitarianism which believes that Christ is the eternal Son of God, who is God, and yet distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. We believe that He joined to His divine nature a fully human nature, and that He will continue to have this divine/ human nature to all eternity.

See also here.
Continued...

Against Modalism 5: Is Trinitarianism Pagan?

2008-04-07T21:57:00.002+01:00

Apart from portraying Trinitarians as believing in three Gods, Modalists and other Unitarians attempt an ad hominem fallacy by asserting that Trinitarianism comes from paganism, i.e. guilt by association. Even if paganism had such an idea, it would not invalidate the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The reality is that such a concept is utterly alien to paganism.

Some Modalists, that I have debated with, backed-up their assertion by asking me to consult the Free Church of Scotland pastor Alexander Hislop’s The Two Babylons.

In this book against Romanism, he just shows how that pseudo-church corrupted its worship by the introduction of Tri-theistic and Modalistic images from paganism to represent the Trinity. As a true Presbyterian (as opposed to liberalism), he abhorred the syncretism and idolatry of that system. As a true Presbyterian, it is absurd to suggest that he was suggesting that Trinitarianism was rooted in paganism, nor is there any evidence of this in the book.

None of these pagan triads were like the Trinity in their metaphysical state. They were either Tri-theistic (three gods, not one God in three Persons), often with this triad over further sub-gods; or Modalistic, where the one, supreme deity was manifest in different forms or modes, e.g. as he states on p. 18, “In India, the supreme divinity… is represented with three heads on one body, under the name of ‘Eko Deva Trimurtti,’ ‘One God, three forms.’”

If anything, Hislop’s work shows a connection between Modalism (one God, three forms – or more) and paganism.

Also, as the early church leaders (e.g. Hippolytus) argued in their writings, Modalism was derived from the pagan Greek philosophy of Heraclitus and Plato, who believed that God was a Monad.

Unitarians’ own moulding of Scripture to fit their philosophical presuppositions is evident when they urge that it is ridiculous to believe that one God could consist of three Persons. Why not? This is begging the question. (See the previous article.)

The following quote from B.B. Warfield’s Biblical Doctrines (pp. 133, 134) is worth reproducing:

“In point of fact, the doctrine of the Trinity is purely a revealed doctrine. That is to say, it embodies a truth which has never been discovered, and is indiscoverable, by natural reason. With all his searching, man has not been able to find out for himself the deepest things of God. Accordingly, ethnic thought has never attained a Trinitarian conception of God, nor does any ethnic religion present in its representations of the Divine Being any analogy to the doctrine of the Trinity.

“Triads of divinities, no doubt, occur in nearly all poly¬theistic religions, formed under very various influences. Sometimes, as in the Egyptian triad of Osiris, Isis and Horus, it is the analogy of the human family with its father, mother and son which lies at their basis. Sometimes they are the effect of mere syncretism, three deities worshipped in different localities being brought together in the common worship of all.

“Sometimes, as in the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, they represent the cyclic movement of a pantheistic evolution, and symbolize the three stages of Being, Becoming and Dissolution. Sometimes they are the result apparently of nothing more than an odd human tendency to think in threes, which has given the number three widespread standing as a sacred number (so H. Usener).

“It is no more than was to be anticipated, that one or another of these triads should now and again be pointed to as the replica (or even the original) of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Gladstone found the Trinity in the Homeric mythology, the trident of Poseidon being its symbol. Hegel very naturally found it in the Hindu Trimurti, which indeed is very like his pantheising notion of what the Trinity is. Others have perceived it in the Buddhist Triratna (Soderblom); or (despite their crass dualism) in some speculations of Parseeism; or, more frequently, in the notional triad of Platonism (e. g., Knapp); while Jules Martin is quite sure that it is present in Philo's neo-Stoical doctrine of the "powers," especially when applied to the explanation of Abraham's three visitors. Of late years, eyes have been turned rather to Babylonia; and H. Zim¬mern finds a possible forerunner of the Trinity in a Father, Son, and Intercessor, which he discovers in its mythology.

“It should be needless to say that none of these triads has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of ‘threeness,’ and beyond their ‘threeness’ these triads have nothing in common with it.”
Continued...

Against Modalism 4: Not One God and Three Gods, nor Three Persons and One Person

2008-04-05T00:59:00.004+01:00

To continue clearing some ground, some Unitarians laugh and say, "Trinitarians are ridiculous! How could there be three Gods and yet one God?"

It would be illogical to say that there is one God and three Gods, or one person who is three persons (A = 3A or B = 3B), but the Trinitarians do not oppose the rules of logic. We nowhere state such things. This is the fallacy of category.

We say that there is one God in three persons. “God” and “person” are different categories, so this true representation of Trinitarianism is logical (A = 3B). For example, is it illogical to say that I am one person, but have two constituents: a body and a soul? (Although the being of God is not absolutely analogous to this.)

God is unique and beyond our experience and comprehension. We should not seek to mould him to our own experience, but humbly submit to His self-revelation.
Continued...

Against Modalism 3: The Seriousness of the Situation

2008-04-04T23:46:00.006+01:00

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of those doctrines which Scripture clearly reveals in its basic facts and yet is hard to fully comprehend. This prompts some 'untaught and unstable people' to 'twist' these teachings 'to their own destruction'.

...our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15,16)

What a serious thing heresy is, not only for the Church, but also for the heretics themselves, esp. in denying the Lord and who He is:

But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)

Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:22,23)

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9)

But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe... raging waves of the sea, foaming up their own shame; wandering stars for whom is reserved the blackness of darkness forever... “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.”... These are sensual persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit. (Jude 5,13-15,19)

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
You are of God, little children, and have overcome them, because He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
They are of the world. Therefore they speak as of the world, and the world hears them.
We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6)

Although this passage relates directly to the Gnostics who taught that Christ didn't really come in the flesh, but was a spirit who gave the appearance of having flesh, how much more serious is it to deny the distinct personality of the eternal Son in distinction from the Father? It may well be that Modalists could be directly included in this passage, as they deny that the eternal Son came in the flesh, for they really believe that the Father was the one who came in the flesh, in the humanity of Jesus Christ.

Let those who are taught Modalism by their leaders examine these teachings in the light of Holy Scripture and thus 'test the spirits, whether they are of God'. Let them be like the Bereans who were praised for holding the Apostle Paul accountable to the Word of God (Acts 17:11).

Those who teach others and lead them astray so seriously are severely warned:

My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment. (James 3:1)

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matt. 18:6)

Modalists are not members of Christ's body as true believers have 'one Lord' and 'one faith' (Eph. 4:5), but Modalists have a different Lord and a different faith.
Continued...

Against Modalism 2: We Believe in One God

2008-04-04T21:56:00.012+01:00

Q. Are there more Gods than one?
A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

— Question 5 of the Shorter Catechism, which Presbyterian children traditionally learn.

In the debate with Modalists and other Unitarians, Trinitarians are often said to believe in three Gods, or they quote passages that state that there is one God as if we did not believe this.

We do not believe in three Gods. We believe in one God and our confessions, creeds, books and articles over millennia make this abundantly clear.

To say that we believe in three Gods, or several, is not merely a misunderstanding, it is an inexcusable misrepresentation, or at best culpable ignorance. To persist in declaring such untruths while conscious of knowledge to the contrary is to wilfully lie.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. (Exodus 20:16)

Furthermore to merely quote passages which affirm a belief in one God is also misleading and distracts from the real point of difference: are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit three distinct persons in the one God, or three manifestations of the one Divine Person?
Continued...

Against Modalism 1: Defining the Debate

2008-04-03T21:28:00.013+01:00

In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

Such is the united historic Confession of Faith of the English-speaking Presbyterian, Baptist and Congregationalist Churches together with all who adhere to the orthodox faith. This Confession reflects the teaching confessed from ancient times in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds.

The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental doctrine of the Church, necessary for salvation in its essentials, yet throughout the ages various heretics choose (hairesis) to depart from "the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Continually heretics assail the doctrine of God's being, whether it is the polytheism of Mormonism, or the Arianism of the so-called Jehovah's Witnesses. The Arians are one sub-group of the Unitarians. Unitarians are those who believe that there is one God, but deny that there are three persons (for want of a better word) or subsistences in the one God. Another sub-group of the Unitarians are the Modalists.

What is Modalism? Modalists believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not three distinct persons in the one God, but three different manifestations of the one Divine person, or God. There are variations within Modalism: some see Jesus as the human manifestation of the Father; and others see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as different manifestations of Jesus.

The Modalism that I will examine sees Jesus as the human manifestation of the Father, and as the only begotten of the Father, or Son of God, in that sense. The Son is a manifestation that did not exist prior to the Incarnation.

Modalism is also known as Sabellianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, Patripassianism and Oneness Theology. Sabellianism refers to a well-known Modalist in the Early Church, Sabellius; Monarchianism and Oneness refer to the emphasis on the 'oneness' of God the ruler to the extinction of the three persons; and Patripassianism refers to the belief that the Father died on the Cross as Jesus was just a mode of the Father.

In our own day the best-known Modalists are the Oneness Pentecostals, who originated at a camp meeting in 1913 (esp. the United Pentecostal Church International, see here for a good outline of their views), and in Northern Ireland the best-known (former) representative is James McConnell of the Metropolitan Tabernacle at Whitewell in Belfast, who has now accepted Trinitarianism. (He did not make public confession for his sin and continues to talk about 54 years of 'faithful' ministry. For a long-time the 'Christ-centredness' of Whitewell was something other than many thought, e.g. in 1984, the 'faithful pastor' says, "The [Socinian] Unitarians make little of Jesus... the Trinitarians make much of Jesus... this church makes all of Jesus!" See John Montgomery's Evangelical or Heretical: An Examination of the Churches of God in Ulster.)

It might be useful to quote the official statement of the UPCI as one form of Modalist creed:

Oneness of God
In distinction to the doctrine of the Trinity, the UPCI holds to a oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one.
The UPCI teaches that the one God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ was and is God. In other words, Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (John 1:1-14; I Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9).
While fully God, Jesus was also fully man, possessing a full and true humanity. He was both God and man. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is God with us and in us. Thus God is manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.

A fuller outline of UPCI beliefs may be found here.

This series of articles has arisen out of an attempt to call some Modalists to flee from their self-destructive beliefs.

We must approach the study of the being of God with humility and care, and fear and trembling because He is the awesome Lord of Hosts. Nevertheless, as Charles Hodge states in his Systematic Theology, the "distinct personality [of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit] is one of the most clearly revealed doctrines of the Word of God. Sabellianism was, therefore, soon almost universally rejected."
Continued...

Poll on Religious Knowledge in Ireland

2007-12-10T20:01:00.000Z

See here. Surprisingly, NI is worse than ROI, and "Protestants" are worse than Roman Catholics.

Religious Education in NI Schools in the 20th Century

2007-12-05T19:52:00.000Z

Henry Cooke's opposition to the interference of the State in the independence of the Presbyterian Church in adminstering its schools in the early 19th Century is "relatively well-known" due to the information contained in his biography, but what is less well-known is the subsequent battle for religious education in NI schools thereafter.

The influence of the secularists was so strong that the Education Act (NI) 1923 "stated that schools were to provide ‘an education both literary and moral, based upon instruction in the reading and writing of the English language and in arithmetic.’ Religious instruction was no longer to be part of the required curriculum except where it might impinge through ‘moral education’. Under clause 28 such instruction was forbidden in elementary schools, and under clause 26, local education authorities were not permitted to provide religious instruction in schools under their control. Under clause 66 the education authority was not entitled to take into account a teacher’s religion when an appointment was being made. Lord Londonderry, who was opposed to the segregation of children according to religious belief, did not think it was the state’s role to assume responsibility to impart Christian beliefs. He argued that the state’s role should be a neutral one in this area."

By this act, the Churches also lost effectual control of their schools.

Opposition was strong and concessions were made in 1925 and 1930 to amend the Act. The 1925 amendment included morality alongside literacy as an aim of the educational system and allowed for schools to provide "simple bible instruction," but insisted that the local education authorities could not provide and pay for religious instruction.

The 1930 amendment "allowed the Protestant clergy to maintain a share in the control of the local elementary schools although these were ostensibly under local civic control. [It also provided that] the Ministry would pay one half of the costs of building and equipping new voluntary schools. It also obliged teachers to give simple bible instruction, and removed the prohibition on inquiring into a teaching candidate’s religious background."

Further information may be obtained here.

N. Ireland 3rd in World in Reading and Science

2007-12-04T09:55:00.000Z

A recent BBC News article has stated that the U.K. has dropped down the PISA/OECD league table in reading, but this is very misleading. N. Ireland came 3rd after South Korea and Finland. N. Ireland also came 3rd in science after Finland and Japan. (However, Scotland beat us in Maths, and I'm not sure where we came in that table.) Sounds like a good time to do away with the "backward" educational system of NI, which still has 11-plus's and state-funded grammar schools.

The Republic of Ireland came 7th in reading (if NI is included). Most of the English-speaking countries were in the top-ten for reading, apart from England and the U.S. (It is unclear where Scotland and Wales came.) See the following URLs:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4075903.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7115692.stm

Good News!

2007-11-21T12:16:00.000Z

God has graciously answered our prayers, and those of his saints, in granting his servant a really interesting new job with a significant increase in pay and in which I will be working with a number of gifted and good-natured colleagues. Given that my pay has not seen any inflationary (or other) rise since 2001 (apart from a promotion that just gave me an inflationary rise) due to the state of the market, I am thankful to be at last getting what my experience and skill deserve.

You can find out more about Andor, who I will be working for here. I could see God's hand at work at various points over the last few years and will elucidate this when time permits.

Outline of Scottish and Irish Presbyterian History Completed

2007-11-17T10:39:00.001Z

Please note that I have blogged the last two sections of this outline (19th and 20th/21st centuries), which I have expanded from the original that I produced for my friend. See posts further down.

Please note that I have updated my original and need to align all of these posts with this.

Redundancy

2007-11-16T17:10:00.000Z

Today I was handed my official notification of redundancy and will cease to work for Flextronics from Monday. As yet I have had no job offers, although I have had three interviews and will have another one on Tuesday, God willing. Please pray for us at this time.

Remembrance Day

2007-11-11T16:09:00.000Z

We give thanks to God for those men and women who laid down their lives for our freedom, and for delivering us from the Kaiser's armies, the Nazis, and other enemies of our country.

We give thanks for all those martyrs who were persecuted and died that we might have the freedom to worship God according to His Word and to bring the Good News of Christ to our fellow countrymen.

We pray that God will deliver us from the internal enemies who are destroying our nation in this day: the liberals, atheists, so-called humanists, materialists, Mohammedans, and all who oppose true godliness.

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." (Proverbs 14:34)

The 20th and 21st Centuries: Barthianism, Feminism, Ecumenism, Charismaticism and Reformed Revival

2007-09-24T20:12:00.003+01:00

1900 United Free Church (UFC) formed by the union of the majority of the UPC with the majority of the Free Church, although in both cases minorities remain. Sadly, pietism, the spirit of compromise, and a lax view of theological distinctions and subscription to the Westminster Standards are behind these well-intentioned unions, rather than agreement through more faithful adherence to the teachings of Scripture.

1905 The remnant Free Church repeals the legislation allowing man-made hymns and instrumental accompaniment in worship.

1910 Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland formed by the union of the Remonstrant Synod (1830) and the Presbytery of Antrim (1725/26).

1921 Parliament passes an act recognising the spiritual independence of the mainstream Church of Scotland, paving the way for union with the UFC.

1921-22 The Fisherman’s Revival – A great revival breaks out in the north-east of Scotland.

1921-25 In Ireland, revival breaks out through the preaching of W.P. Nicholson, especially in 1922. In Belfast, a new warehouse has to be built to handle the amount of stolen goods that are returned! More than a quarter of the population of Ballymena claim to be born again through the influence of his preaching in 1923.

1926 The PCI allows women elders.

1927-28 Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ireland – False teaching in the Union Theological College of the mainstream PCI by Prof. Ernest Davey goes undisciplined, leading to a secession forming the EPCI, who at this time are called the Irish Evangelical Church. This tiny denomination is more akin to the OPC and the more conservative elements of the PCA, and has close ties with the descendants of the Cameronians, the RPCI (who make no claims to largeness either!).

Liberalism, and particularly Barthianism, would plague the PCI through much of the 20^th century, although not to the same degree as other mainstream Presbyterian churches.

1929 The United Free Church eventually joined the Church of Scotland in 1929, although a remnant UFC remain outside. Sadly this union is not in response to advances in faithfulness, but as a result of decline in doctrine and practice.

1930 Remnant UFC ordains first women elders.

1935 Remnant UFC ordains first woman preacher, Elizabeth Barr.

Synod of Munster enters the Non-Subscribing Presbyterian Church of Ireland.

1936 Ecumenical Iona Community established in Scotland by a Church of Scotland minister, George McCleod.

1948 Ecumenical World Council of Churches (WCC) formed. PCI becomes a member. The Roman ‘Catholic Church’ are not members, but the WCC are keen on its participation.

1951 Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster (FPCU) formed by a number of Fundamentalists from various denominations, but mainly the PCI, through the influence of Ian Paisley. This Church theoretically holds to the Westminster Standards, but would be viewed as more Fundamentalist than Reformed (although ultimately all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists), although some of its preachers are certainly very Reformed in their outlook. Interestingly, this Church allows for both paedobaptist and anti-paedobaptist beliefs and practices.

1956 Original Secession Church (the part did not unite with Free Church in 1852) unites with Church of Scotland. A remnant unites with the Free Church.

1958 Accession of the liberal Pope John XXIII.

1959 Remnant UFC elects Elizabeth Barr to moderatorship.

1961 The Vatican sends observers to the WCC meeting in New Delhi.

1962 The Moderator of the Church of Scotland visits the Pope in Rome.

The WCC send observers to the Second Vatican Council.

1965 Ecumenical Corrymeela Community established in Ireland, partly by former members of the Scottish Iona Community.

1966 The Church of Scotland allows women elders.

1968 The Church of Scotland allows women preachers.

1969 “The Troubles” erupt in Northern Ireland.

1972 United Reformed Church (URC) formed from union of Presbyterian Church of England (formerly part of Scottish church) with Congregational Church in England and Wales.

1976 The PCI allows women preachers, although evangelical influence begins to strengthen in the 1970’s.

The FPCU starts its first work in North America.

1978 Strengthening evangelical influence in the PCI leads to its suspension of membership of the WCC.

1980 The PCI completely withdraws its membership of the WCC, although it remains a member of other organisations that are members of the WCC.

1989 Associated Presbyterian Church (APC) splits from the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS) over what they see as liberty of conscience. One of the events that precipitate this division was the attendance by Lord Mackay, who was both an elder in the FPCS and the highest judge in the land, at a funeral mass.

1994 The IRA declares a ceasefire, which they later break.

1997 The IRA declares a second ceasefire.

1998 The Good Friday, or Belfast, Agreement – An agreement is signed between the British and Irish governments and endorsed by all the major parties, except the DUP, in Northern Ireland. This is further endorsed by the Ulster electorate.

2000 The Free Church experiences a split into a majority remnant and the Free Church (Continuing) due to lack of discipline regarding the alleged sexual misconduct of its leading theologian, Donald Macleod. The RPCI, not having sufficient evidence regarding this affair, cuts off relations with the majority Free Church due to the lack of discipline over seriously-erroneous theological statements made by the same professor.

Both Free Churches, together with the RP Churches, the FPCS and the APC still sing psalms exclusively without instrumental accompaniment.

2003 First woman moderator of the Church of Scotland.

2007 Ian Paisley MP MLA MEP becomes the First Minister of the NI Assembly (a secondary legislative body under the British Parliament), sharing government with Sinn Fein, the political arm of the IRA. He agrees not to stand for re-election to the office of Moderator of the FPCU, due to concerns within the FPCU about his political role as First Minister, although having held this office every year but one since the formation of the denomination.

The PCI General Assembly votes by a slim majority to receive (not adopt) a report that placates the homosexual community, including those within the denomination.

SCOTLAND TODAY

The Church of Scotland is as bad as the PCUSA, and Scotland is the most liberal nation within the United Kingdom. How are the mighty fallen!

Evangelicals still remain within the Church of Scotland, as in many unfaithful “churches”. Outside the Church of Scotland, the divided nature of the evangelical Presbyterian churches and issues with church discipline continue to be a problem.

Pray for Scotland’s revival and reformation!

IRELAND TODAY

Although traditional Liberalism is not that prevalent in the PCI and it is not beset with the same degree of error as the Church of Scotland, it still has many serious problems. These include ecumenism, charismaticism, downgrade in worship and ethics, a majority inactive and unbelieving membership, and allowing women to be ordained as preachers and elders. In the opinion of some, Church House and its committees are increasingly centralising the rule within the PCI. In the opinion of others, the PCI is undergoing a gradual, but slow reformation. It is undoubtedly true that God is blessing the faithful evangelistic endeavours of a number of PCI churches in the predominantly Roman Catholic Republic of Ireland.

The RPCI and EPC still maintain a strongly Reformed witness, as they have throughout their existence. Despite their small size, these denominations have an increasingly evangelistic emphasis while maintaining historic, Westminster Presbyterianism. The RPCI is actively planting churches and still adheres to the covenanting beliefs of their forefathers. Throughout most of the north and east of Ulster you can’t travel 15 minutes without coming to a Reformed church.

The FPCU also continues to maintain a strong evangelical witness. It is hoped also that it will move towards a more clearly Reformed outlook, both in theology and practice.

Evangelicals continue to have a significant influence in Northern Ireland, including civil government, but this is declining through the choking effects of materialism.

How we need God’s power in true revival in Ireland once more! Pray for this!

Continued...

Presbyterianism Transplanted to America

2007-09-24T20:11:00.004+01:00

1683-84 Francis Makemie, “the Father of American Presbyterianism,” establishes the first Presbyterian congregation in Maryland.

1706 The first American mainstream presbytery formed in Philadelphia.

1720-45 The most significant period of migration of Scots-Irish Presbyterians to America.

1753 First American Associate (or Seceder) Presbytery.

1768 Dr John Witherspoon, leader of the Orthodox party in the Church of Scotland, emigrates to become Principal of Princeton College, and later a signatory of the Declaration of Independence.

1774 First American Reformed Presbytery.

1782 Some of the Seceders and all the Covenanter preachers unite to form what would eventually evolve into the Associated Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP) (hence Erskine College and Erskine Theological Seminary in South Carolina).

1798 The Reformed Presbytery re-established in America.

The greater part of the Presbyterians that came to America did not come directly from Scotland, but were Scots-Irish or Ulster Scots from the North of Ireland (e.g. Francis Makemie was from North-West Ulster, or the Laggan, and two of the earliest presbyteries were Donegal and Londonderry). These Scots-Irish had settled the wilderness of Ireland amongst wild and dangerous inhabitants, and so were ideally suited for the plantation of America.

In Ireland, Presbyterians did not enjoy the same freedom as their brethren in Scotland due to the establishment in Ireland of the Episcopalian Church, e.g. a marriage performed by a Presbyterian minister was illegal. This together with unjust taxation and exorbitant rents led to a large emigration from Ulster. The continued migration of many from the RPCI to America over the years, due to the greater poverty of its membership, would have a profoundly weakening effect on this small denomination. (Their poverty was exacerbated by the fact that they did not have the help of government money as the other Presbyterians did.)

In America, these Irish Presbyterians would experience similar persecution by Episcopalians in Virginia and unjust taxation and usurpation of power by the British Parliament, thus leading to the predominant influence of these people in the War for Independence. Lord Mountjoy told the British Parliament, “We have lost America through the Irish [i.e. the Scots-Irish Presbyterians, not the Irish Catholics].” Prime Minister Walpole in a jibe to his Cabinet (i.e. Executive) said, “I hear that our American cousin has run away with a Scots-Irish [Presbyterian] parson.” They applied many of the same principles in rejecting George III as King as the Covenanters had in rejecting Charles II and James II at Sanquhar.

The Scots-Irish would have a profound effect on the history of America, providing many of its presidents (e.g. Andrew Jackson), generals (e.g. Stonewall Jackson), pioneers (e.g. Davy Crockett) and leading businessmen. Many of those who live in the country areas of America and derive their blood from the earlier settlers would have Scots-Irish descent.

During the movement westward, many of these Scots-Irish would become Baptists and Methodists due to the inability of the Presbyterian Church to adapt to the Frontier conditions and the influence of revivalism.

Continued...

The 19th Century: Evangelicalism, Missions, the Great Disruption, the Ulster Revival, Divisions and Unions, and Arianism and Liberalism

2007-09-24T20:11:00.003+01:00

1800’s In both Scotland and

Ireland

, the evangelical revival leads to a great increase in missionary activity throughout the world. The British Empire and the Pax Britannica are vital to the spread of the good news of the Gospel to all the ends of the earth.

1806 Scottish Anti-Burgher Synod divides into Old Light and New Light factions over the same questions as the Burghers did in 1799.

1808 Synod of Ulster starts to prepare its Code to formalise a set of laws for order and discipline for the first time. This seemly bureaucratic measure would be important in the battle with Arianism to come.

1810 The RPCS large enough to form a Synod.

1811 The RPCI large enough to form a Synod.

1812-36 Presbyterianism revived in England by the establishment of Presbyterian congregations by Scottish immigrants, but these congregations remain part of Scottish Church, and are not a distinct English body until 1836, when the Church of Scotland congregations become the Presbyterian Church in England.

1818 Irish Burgher and Anti-Burgher Seceders unite to form “the Presbyterian Synod of Ireland, distinguished by the name Seceders.”

1819 John Paul of the RPCI publishes various writings against Arianism, and in defence of creeds and confessions

1820 United Secession Church formed in Scotland by union of New Light Burghers and New Light Anti-Burghers. A remnant remains of the New Light Burghers.

1821 The Arian Controversy – Henry Cooke begins his battle against Arianism by following and speaking out against a visiting English Unitarian as he toured the country.

The half measures adopted by the Synod of Ulster in dealing with the Non-subscribing Presbytery of Antrim were beginning to bear fruit. Cooke, when addressing the Parliamentary Commission on Irish Education in 1824, estimated that about 35 out of the 200 ministers in the Synod were Arians.

“For at least half a century, subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith had fallen into disuse, and candidates had been admitted to license without any reference to their religious principles.” (Reid).

Professor Bruce chosen for the Chair of Greek in the Belfast Academical Institution by those who hold Arian and unorthodox views, causing a great controversy, though there is no evidence that he was himself not orthodox. The problem was that the Arians’ candidate one through, even though better men were possibilities.

1822 Cooke brings before the Synod of Ulster his concerns about the Arian influence in the Belfast Academical Institution. Cooke stands alone at this stage of the controversy as the courage of his brethren fails: “I seem this day to stand alone. Yet I am not alone. Men may draw back in fear, but God and truth are with me!”

Dr Bruce Sr., the father of Professor Bruce, and a member of the Presbytery of Antrim publishes the “first printed avowal and defence of Unitarian opinions in Ireland since the time of Emlyn.” (J.S. Porter). He asserts that Arian principles are making extensive, though silent progress in the Synod of Ulster.

John Paul of the RPCI publishes “an acute and powerful polemic” against Dr Bruce’s theses.

1824 The Code for the Synod of Ulster is finished by a committee including Cooke. After the falling away of Subscription, the Code re-asserts that “presbyteries, before they license candidates to preach the Gospel, shall ascertain the soundness of their faith, either by requiring subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith, or by such examination as they shall consider best adapted for this purpose.”

Strangely the Arian party welcomes this as “tantamount to a repeal of the law of subscription” (Reid).

Synod rejects Bruce Sr.’s assertion that Arianism was spreading extensively within it.

William Porter of Limavady admits publicly to Parliamentary Commission on Irish Education that he is an Arian, and that Arianism was “gaining ground amongst the thinking few”.

1827 The Report of the Parliamentary Commission on Irish Education is published and Porter’s profession of Arianism becomes known. A motion is tabled to removing him from being Clerk of Synod for his opinions.

The Synod of Ulster discusses this and originally intends to condemn certain parts of Porter’s testimony, while permitting him to retain his situation to avoid the imputation of “persecution for the sake of opinion” (Reid).

Henry Cooke tables a resolution that the members of Synod “for the purpose of affording a public testimony to the truth, as well as of vindicating their religious character as individuals, declare, that they do must firmly hold and believe the doctrine concerning the nature of God contained in these words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, namely, that ‘there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.’”

A heated debate begins and Henry Montgomery, the leader of the Arian party within the Synod of Ulster, attacks the “iniquity of creeds or confessions” (Reid). However, Cooke’s motion is carried by an overwhelming majority.

Montgomery’s speech is printed and circulated throughout the land.

Scottish New Light Burghers remnant unites with Old Light Anti-Burghers.

1828 John Paul of the RPCI “demolishes” Montgomery’s arguments in his own publication.

At the Synod of Ulster, Cooke moves a series of overtures to establish a committee for the examination of candidates for license and ordination, with a view to excluding those who denied fundamental doctrines, such as the Trinity. He struggles against the orthodox who want less stringent measures. A heated debate ensues, but over two-thirds of the ministers and ruling elders vote for the measures.

At a public meeting, the New Light party adopted a Remonstrance, threatening to secede from the Synod of Ulster and form a separate association unless the overtures were withdrawn.

1829 John Ferrie, a Scottish Arian, is appointed to the Chair of Moral Philosophy in the Belfast Academical Institution.

Ferrie’s election causes a heated debate in the Synod of Ulster. Montgomery speaks to Synod for three hours (!), during which he slanders Cooke with lying and threatens division. Cooke defends himself successfully.

A special synod is called to discuss the overtures from 1828, but the Arians agree not to attend. At the pro re nata meeting of Synod, memorials are received approving of the overtures and calling for Arians to be excluded from ecclesiastical communion. The Remonstrance is also received and the Arian representative asks that if the overtures are approved that arrangements should be made for their separation.

1830 Remonstrant Synod of Ulster – The Arians officially separate from the Synod of Ulster.

Edward Irving condemned by Church of Scotland for holding heretical views of Christ.

1833 Thomas Chalmers, at the General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland, proposed that “no pastor should be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the people.” The vote was lost by a small majority, but showed that the Evangelical Party were soon to gain the ascendancy over the Moderates.

1834 The Veto Act – The General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland approves a motion to allow the people to veto any candidate proposed by the patron.

The Chapel Act – The Assembly also approves a motion to allow the preachers in chapels of ease to exercise their ruling as well as teaching roles in the Church. (The Chapels of Ease were to augment the parish churches due to the vast increase of people in the towns, were not under patrons and generally had evangelical preachers.)

Henry Cooke convinces the Synod of Ulster to reject the Government’s proposal for a National System of Education as he saw that it sought to undermine the freedom to use Scripture in the schools and would allow Romanist and Unitarians, as well as unbelieving aristocrats to have control over the Church’s schools.

1835 Irving deposed after further erroneous teaching and practice, including supposed miracles.

The Synod of Ulster passes an overture in favour of unqualified subscription to the Westminster Confession.

1837 The Auchterarder Case – The patron presents a candidate that was rejected by the vast majority of those able to exercise the veto. The patron and the candidate brought the case to the Civil Courts, who found against the Established Church of Scotland by a majority of 8 to 5 of the judges in the Court of Session.

1838 The Church appeals to the House of Lords in the Auchterarder Case, but is rejected.

The Lethendy Case – Mr Clark, a vetoed presentee, appeals to the civil courts to apply an interdict against a candidate approved by the people, Mr Kessen. The civil courts apply the interdict. The Commission of the General Assembly instructs the Presbytery of Dunkeld to proceed with the settlement of Mr Kessen, the people’s choice. Mr Hope, the leader of the Moderates, threatens the Presbytery with imprisonment. The Presbytery proceeds with ordination despite the threats.

The (Civil) Court of Session instructs the members of the Presbytery to appear before it and reprimands them. The Presbytery are sentenced to provides damages worth several thousand pounds to the vetoed presentee, Mr Clark.

1839 Majority of Old Light Burghers (Seceders) unite with the Established Church of Scotland. A remnant remains.

The Marnoch Case – The Presbytery of Strathbogie in north Aberdeenshire (an area “studded with Moderate clergy from the days of Prelacy” – McCrie) resolves to intrude a presentee upon the parish of Marnoch, despite only one man signing the call, who was the publican of the house at which the Presbytery met, and despite the orders of the Commission of the General Assembly.

The Commission passes the sentence of suspension upon the seven ministers of the Presbytery of Strathbogie. Hypocritically the Moderates cry out for respect for their consciences!

1840 Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) formed from the union of the ‘mainstream’ Synod of Ulster with the Irish Seceders (Associate Synod).

The system of National Education in Ireland is modified sufficiently to be accepted by the PCI and its schools join the scheme.

The Eastern RP Synod – This is formed by a minority, led by John Paul, who split from the RPCI, and which is based in Greater Belfast, the Londonderry/ Donegal area and at Cullybackey, near Ballymena. The division is the culmination of 10 years of heated debate about the role of the civil government in matters of religion between two parties in the Church led respectively by Thomas Houston and John Paul. Dr Paul states that the reasons for secession were Synod’s decisions in support of Mr Houston and “were directed against Mr Houston on the grounds that he taught persecuting principles; that he has represented the Covenanting Fathers as wanting to extirpate not principles but persons; that had accorded to the Civil Magistrate in a Gospel Age, powers that were consistent with the Mosaic Law; and that intolerable burdens were placed on the consciences of Christian People by such teaching.” (Loughridge) One sees similarities with the modern debate on Theonomy.

Later on, half of the Eastern RP Synod will come back into the RPCI, and half will join the PCI.

The Presbytery of Strathbogie applies for and receives an interdict against the General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland from the civil courts. The Commission of the General Assembly prepares a libel against them.

1841 The Presbytery of Strathbogie proceeds to settle the vetoed presentee at Marnoch. An elder confronts them and asks if they appeared by the authority of the General Assembly. They refuse to answer. A representative of the congregation presents their objections to the settlement. The people as a body pick up their Bibles and leave the church building, never to return. The farcical and illegal act of ordination proceeds nonetheless.

The Presbytery of Strathbogie applies for and receives an interdict from the civil courts forbidding any member of the Church from preaching within their bounds. Candlish, Chalmers and others disobey this tyranny. Candlish was due to be appointed to the Chair of Biblical Criticism, but the appointment is withdrawn as punishment for this act.

The General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland approves the parliamentary bill proposed by the Duke of Argyll to establish the ecclesiastical Veto Act of 1834 in civil law.

At the General Assembly, the Presbytery of Strathbogie is deposed and the illegally ordained presentee of Marnoch has his licence removed. A Commissioner of the Court of Session presents the Moderator with an interdict, applied for by the Presbytery, prohibiting the General Assembly from deposing these men. The Assembly passes various resolutions asserting the rights of the Assembly and resolving to communicate these to the Queen in council.

A public meeting is held after the Assembly at which 1200 office-bearers attend and over which the Moderator, Dr Gordon, presides. Gordon declares to the meeting, “It has come, I say, to this, that I am called upon either to renounce these principles [that the Church has a spiritual authority distinct from the civil government], or to renounce the privileges which I hold as an ordained minister of the Church of Scotland.”

The Culsamond Case – The Presbytery of Garioch in Aberdeenshire seek to ordain against the dissent of people and the laws of the Church. The people crowd the church building with a “noisy and tumultuous assembly,” forcing the Presbytery to ordain the presentee in the manse with barred doors.

1842 Original Secession Church formed in Scotland by union of Old Light Burghers remnant and Old Light Anti-Burghers.

“The Forty” – Forty of the Non-Intrusionists (i.e. those who opposed the intrusion of a patron’s presentee against the wishes of a congregation) divide from the others, begin separate talks with the Civil Government and show signs of compromise. This compromise undermines the efforts of the Church in its negotiations with the State and McCrie goes so far as to say that “at the doors of these unfortunate men lies the ruin of the Scottish Establishment.” These men would remain in the Establishment at the Disruption.

The frustrated presentee of the Auchterarder Case of 1837 seeks damages of £16,000 against the Church in the civil courts, precipitating what was soon to come to pass.

Argyll’s parliamentary bill to support the Veto Act of 1834 fails.

At the Assembly, Cunningham’s motion against patronage, and to petition the Civil Government concerning it, is passed.

“The Claim of Rights” – Chalmers’ motion to the Assembly asking for adoption of this document is passed by 241 against 110 votes. It consisted of three parts:

– A Claim to certain legal rights granted to the Church by Parliament guaranteeing her freedom.

– A Declaration that they cannot intrude presentees against wishes of the people or be subject to coercion by the Court of Session.

– A Protest that they hold all infractions of their legal rights by the Parliament at the time of Union to be null and void, that they or their successors shall be free to claim restitution of the those civil rights and privileges that they may be compelled to give up to preserve their freedom.

The Commissioner agrees to convey the Claim of Rights and the petition against patronage to the Queen.

500 Non-Intrusionist preachers meet in Edinburgh on 27th November. Prior to the business meeting, worship is held as which Chalmers preaches on the text, “Unto the upright there arises light in the darkness.” Only preachers are present to allow the men to feel free to voice their mind. Over six days they discuss the state of affairs, and agree that the Church could not submit to the civil authorities without losing her character as a true Church of Christ, that they should apply to the civil authorities for protection in the exercise of their freedom, and that if this application should fail then, rather than protract the struggle and embroil the country, they should leave the Establishment.

1843 The Chapel Act of the Established Church of Scotland (1834) is declared invalid by the Civil Courts. At this stage there are around 50 lawsuits against the Church.

Parliament rejects the petition of the Established Church of Scotland. The Prime Minister, Robert Peel, argues that the Church was exceeding its boundaries in relation to non-intrusion and that the rights of the patron are a civil matter, not an ecclesiastical one! He also states that repealing the Patronage Act was “no less injurious to religion than dangerous to the state.”

The leader of the Moderates, Dr Cook, moves at a meeting of Commission prior to the Assembly that the Quoad Sacra ministers (i.e. those in the chapels of ease) be expunged from the Assembly’s roll in obedience to the Civil Authorities. After he loses his motion, the Moderates retire from the meeting in protest.

“The Great Disruption” – The battle between Evangelicalism and Moderatism/ Erastianism leads to 40% of the preachers (470), a similarly large number of ruling elders and 33% of the people seceding from the Established Church to form the Free Church under the moderatorship of Thomas Chalmers.

Interestingly, a huge portrait of William III, which had stood for nearly 150 years in Holyrood Palace, falls from its place on this fateful day, and the cry goes up, “There goes the Revolution Settlement!” referring to the Erastian compromises made in the Church of Scotland through the power of that King.

At their first Assembly, the Free Church signs an Act of Separation from the Establishment.

The Free Church people leave manses, church buildings and seminaries behind at the time of the Disruption, and build new ones, suffering great loss.

During the period before and after the Disruption, Scotland produced many gifted preachers, theologians and historians such as Robert Murray McCheyne, Andrew and Horatius Bonar, Thomas Chalmers, William Cunningham, James Bannerman, George Smeaton, Patrick Fairburn, Robert Candlish, Hugh Martin, John Kennedy, John ‘Rabbi’ Duncan, John Paton, the Symington Brothers, Andrew Thomson, J.A. Wylie, Thomas McCrie and James Beggs. However, some are infected by Evolutionary beliefs, e.g. Thomas Chalmers and Hugh Miller.

1845-49 The Irish Potato Famine – Terrible famine grips the land and the landlords evict many from their homes, forcing vast number of Irish Catholics to emigrate, particularly to America. What is often not mentioned is that Presbyterians in various parts of the country are also affected.

From 1728 to 1851, there were 24 failures of the harvest in Ireland.

1847 United Presbyterian Church (UPC) formed from the union of the United Secession Church and the Relief Synod

1850 “Temperance Association in connection with the General Assembly” of the PCI is formed, pledged to total abstinence from intoxicating liquors. (It should be noted that whisky was the staple of the Scots-Irish, not beer or wine.)

1851 UPC introduces man-made hymns. (Mainstream American Presbyterianism was influenced by Methodism and Congregationalism in the 18^th Century and so some of its congregations adopted hymns earlier.)

1852 Majority of the Original Secession Church unites with the Free Church.

1859 “The Ulster Revival” takes place, when it is estimated that 100,000 people are converted. These are products of the sovereign work of God’s Spirit and not the man-made creation of revivalism.

This is why, in God’s grace, this tiny nation has been greatly influenced by Evangelicalism, despite a significant Roman Catholic minority. It is worth noting that there is a not insignificant stream of Gaelic Irish blood amongst the Scots-Irish Presbyterians due to the power of the Gospel in the land, but we long to see our fellow Irishmen to be completely delivered from the bondage of Rome.

1861 The Established Church of Scotland introduces man-made hymns.

1863 Majority of RPCS vote that “the members of the Church, who may be led by the resolution to exercise the elective franchise, or take the oath of allegiance, shall not be visited with the infliction of ecclesiastical penalties to the effect of suspension and expulsion from the privileges of the Church.”

A minority dissent and divide from the majority. These declare themselves to the true RPCS and the RPCI and RPCNA only recognise this minority.

1865 The Established Church of Scotland allows all aspects of public worship to be ordered by the presbyteries, leading to the introduction of instrumental accompaniment.

1868-86 Every year the General Assembly of the PCI is exercised with debates about the use of instruments in worship. In 1882, instruments are formally banned, as a few congregations had introduced them, and discussion on the topic is banned for 5 years from 1886. Instruments were gradually introduced despite the fact that even today they are technically illegal!

1871 The disestablishment in Ireland leads to the PCI losing the ‘Regium Donum’ (money from Government) which they had received since the Revolution.

1872 The UPC (or Seceders) lifts its ban on instrumental accompaniment in worship.

1873 The Free Church introduces man-made hymns.

1876 RPCS (Majority Synod) joins with the Free Church, because it has freed itself from Erastianism.

Free Church (including one former RP congregation) and UPC congregations in England unite to form Presbyterian Church of England.

1875-81 Professor William Robertson Smith of the Free Church writes articles in the Encyclopaedia Britannica without endorsing the Bible as literally true in 1875. This leads to a heresy trial from 1878 to 1880, when he is formally cleared of heresy but cautioned to abstain in future from expressing “incautious or incomplete public statements”. Soon after, another of his publications comes out which shows that Robertson Smith’s higher critical views are unchanged and he has been dishonest. He is dismissed from his chair in Aberdeen.

The problem was that in their pride, the Free Church had “gone one better” than the Established Church, which they had left, and sent their students to finish their studies in Germany, where they imbibed Higher Criticism, leading to the introduction of Liberalism.

1879 UPC issues a Declaratory Act relaxing subscription to the Westminster Standards, including six-day creation.

1883 The Free Church lifts its ban on instrumental accompaniment in worship.

1892 The Free Church, following the example of the UPC and the Church of Scotland (1889), passes a Declaratory Act relaxing the stringency of subscription to the confession, which is widely perceived as paving the way for unification with the UPC.

1893 Those opposed to the Declaratory Act and union with the UPC divide into two groups: one which advocates staying and fighting, and another which advocates secession. Those who secede from the Free Church form the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, which is not to be confused with the FPC of Ulster.

1896 Man-made hymns introduced into the PCI.

Continued...

The 18th Century: Erastianism, Moderatism, Secession, Non-Subscriptionism and Emigration

2007-09-24T20:09:00.001+01:00

1703 John Abernethy, the leader of the 18^th Century Non-subscribers, is ordained and installed in a congregation in Antrim town. A fashionable zeal for anti-subscriptionism would afflict the Presbyterian and Reformed churches in Europe.

1704 Test Act – Non-conformists, including Presbyterians, are banned in Ireland from government offices including the army, the navy, customs and excise, post office, the courts of law, magistracy and municipal offices. They are ejected from their current positions. All who hold such offices had to partake of the Lord’s Supper in an Episcopal Church, supposedly to stop Papists from holding such offices.

1705 Synod of Ulster enacts that all ordinands must provide a written and recorded subscription to the Westminster Confession of Faith. They had previously uniformly required some form of subscription, including verbal, to the Westminster Standards, but now it was enacted and strengthened.

The Belfast Society formed – John Abernethy founds this group, which is formed of ministers from the generality locality of Belfast, Antrim and North Down. They meet monthly to discuss various topics, including “the rights of conscience and private judgment”, anti-subscriptionism and views tending to undermine the orthodox doctrine of justification. Although professedly not adhering to Arian opinions, many begin to be influenced by Arian writings such as those written by the heretical Anglicans Samuel Clarke, William Whiston and Benjamin Hoadley.

The two leading members, John Abernethy and James Kirkpatrick, were fellow-students with Professor Simson of Edinburgh and corresponded with him regularly, and most of the members had studied under him.

The members of the Belfast Society were to have a profound influence in the Synod of Ulster due to their geographical position around the principal city. From 1709 to 1716, no fewer than 5 of the 6 moderators of Synod belonged to this group.

1706 The first Reformed Presbyterian preacher in Scotland, John McMillan, secedes from the Established Church.

1707 The Union of the Parliaments of England and Scotland – “No public event was at the time more unpopular in Scotland” (McCrie). The United Societies (RP) issue a formal protest against it. This was indicative of the general abuse of the people by the Scottish aristocracy in the 18^th Century. It was noted by the godly that there was a decline in morals and religion as a result and, through this union, the Church of Scotland came under the power of a British Parliament dominated by English Episcopalians.

1710 Dr William Whiston expelled from the University of Cambridge for holding Arian views.

1712 Patronage Act – “Patrons,” usually aristocracy, have the right to appoint preachers to their parishes in Scotland.

1714 Dr Samuel Clarke arraigned before the Convocation of the Church of England for his Arian views.

1714-16 The first trial of Professor Simson of Glasgow by the General Assembly in Scotland. James Webster of Edinburgh, an old sufferer for the Covenants, brings charges against him “for teaching certain Arminian heresies and loose sentiments regarding natural religion” (McCrie). The Assembly issues a mild rebuke, but at the same time subtly attacks the evangelical party in their findings. This inadequate treatment of Simson would have not only a profound effect on the Church of Scotland, but also the Synod of Ulster.

1714-20 Significant numbers of Scots-Irish Presbyterians emigrate to New England.

1715-46 Various Jacobite Risings seek to bring the Stuarts back to the throne, but are decisively beaten at the Battle of Culloden (16^th April 1746).

1719 Toleration Act – Non-conformists in Ireland officially allowed to worship and govern their churches as they please. The Test Act and all the other abuses still continue, e.g. Presbyterian marriages still not lawful.

Salters’ Hall Debates in England – English non-conformists, including Presbyterians, divide over subscription to the doctrine of the Trinity, despite the union between the Presbyterians and Congregationalists specifying in 1690 that they subscribe to the 39 Articles, Westminster Confession, Westminster Shorter Catechism, Westminster Larger Catechism, or Savoy Declaration. Most of the non-subscribers are Trinitarian, but for various reasons oppose being “bound” by subscription.

Disastrously, non-subscription would lead to the fatal decline into Rationalism and Unitarianism (Arianism) by the English Presbyterians and General Baptists.

Modern English Presbyterianism is mainly a product of Scottish immigration, not the original English Puritan Presbyterianism. Sadly the vast majority of even the descendants of the Scots are now within the liberal United Reformed Church. (“United Reformed” refers to their union with the Congregationalists.)

This English Presbyterian zeal for non-subscribing would have a dangerous influence on the mainstream Synod of Ulster as would Arian, Arminian, Neo-nomian and Socinian writings that emanated from England at this time.

1720 At a meeting of the sub-synod of Belfast, all the members of the Belfast Society freely announce their opposition to subscribing confessions of faith as tests of orthodoxy. It becomes clear that “some presbyteries had taken upon them to sanction a lax mode of subscription, by which the [act of Synod of 1705] might have been evaded altogether, and the Church deprived of her security against the introduction of error among her ministers” (Reid).

Private letters by members of the Belfast Society begin to be circulated acknowledging doubts regarding Christ’s divinity and, even if true, was by no means a fundamental doctrine.

The Pacific Act – The Synod adopts a measure for conciliation whereby all must subscribe to the Westminster Confession according to the original act of 1705, but also “legalis[es] the practice of receiving explanations of objectionable phrases, and thus sanctioned and encouraged further departures from it” (Reid).

Within a month, a Mr Haliday refuses to avail himself of the provisions of the Pacific Act, or to subscribe the Confession of Faith at his installation in Belfast. Through the influence of members of the Belfast Society, the majority of the presbytery receives his own form of confession (a form of ‘System Subscription’) in direct violation of the act of Synod.

1720-24 The battle over Subscription continues in the Synod of Ulster.

1721-29 The second trial of Professor Simson in Scotland. He is accused of teaching Arian heresies and is suspended from his teaching position; but being “a scion of one of the old Levitical Church families” (John Macleod) is treated with partiality and does not receive the discipline he deserves, in contrast to the treatment of the Evangelical Marrow Men. Thomas Boston is the only one to register his dissent.

“Show me your kin and I will show you your law.”

1722 A group of men called the Marrow Men, including Thomas Boston, and Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine, are rebuked and admonished by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland for defending the doctrines contained in the book The Marrow of Modern Divinity.

1725 The Synod of Ulster adopts three overtures regarding the Subscription crisis: firstly, allowing believers who scrupled communion with non-subscribing ministers to follow the light of their own consciences, e.g. leave their congregation and go elsewhere; secondly, distinctly provided that the Pacific Act did not warrant the questioning of any doctrine in the Westminster Confession, but only the phrases in which they were expressed; and lastly, forming new presbyteries in the Belfast and Antrim districts and putting all the Non-subscribers in the Presbytery of Antrim.

1726 Overtures ‘for peace’ from the non-subscribing Presbytery of Antrim are laid before the Synod of Ulster, in which amongst other things they continue to oppose any compulsory declarations of faith, even in the divinity of Christ. The Synod rejects these proposals. The moderates try to avoid a split through procrastination and other undignified, political expedients.

A vote to separate from the Non-subscribers by not “maintain[ing] communion with them in church judicatories as formerly” is carried mainly because of the ruling elders, rather than the ministers, who were almost evenly split.

The limited nature of this separation was unsatisfactory, not only because it allowed for other forms of communion with the Non-subscribers, but it allowed a significant number of ministers to remain within the Synod of Ulster, who had opposed and renounced the principles of the Church and who had secretly adopted the Non-subscribers’ opinions. These ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’ would secretly disseminate their error, leading to further problems, culminating in a further battle against Non-subscriptionism and Unitarianism in the next century, and a further division.

1725-28 Disastrous harvests in Ireland. Food costs more in 1728 than at any time in living memory. 31–year land leases from just after the Revolution expire and the new rent rates are raised to an overwhelming degree. Tithes paid to Episcopalian clergy also greatly increase in line with the rents. (After the Revolution, when landlords needed people on the land, they set the rents much lower.)

Mass migrations of Scots-Irish Presbyterians to America as a result.

1732 Thomas Boston dies.

1733 Original Secession – Some secede from the Established Church, including the Erskine Brothers, to form the Associate Presbytery.

During the 18^th Century, a significant number, who held similar views to the Cameronians (e.g. continuing obligation of the National Covenants and anti-Erastianism), would secede from the Established Church of Scotland and are known as the Secession Churches.

Some of the reasons for these secessions included: the continuing encroachment of state control over the Church as the Erastian influences that the Cameronians had pointed out took hold; and a deadness, termed “Moderatism,” had taken hold of much of the Established Church, which was probably largely due to the state of the ministers that existed as a result of the compromises during the Killing Times and the period of Indulgences.

The Moderates were “moderate in ability, showing a moderate amount of zeal and doing a very moderate amount of work,” and their motto was, “Let sleeping dogmas lie”. They sought to oppose evangelical orthodoxy and more especially to appeal to the fashionable, cultured elite that they themselves were fashionable and cultured, and not overtaken by the religious zeal of the Evangelicals. One of the main battlegrounds was their support for the Patronage Act both to please the aristocratic patrons and to strengthen their own influence and numbers.

1740-1 Terrible famine ravages Ireland, killing 400,000 people, and causing another peak in the migration of Scots-Irish Presbyterians to America.

1742 The Cambuslang Work – George Whitefield preaches at Cambuslang in Scotland and many are converted. This is partly due to the faithful labours of the local preachers prior to this.

1743 The first Scottish Reformed Presbytery formed.

1744 Associate Synod formed in Scotland.

1746 Isaac Patton, the first Irish Seceder, or Associate Presbyterian, preacher, is ordained at Lylehill, south of Templepatrick.

1747 Burgher/ Anti-Burgher Division – Associate Synod divides into Burgher (or Associate) and Anti-Burgher (or General Associate) factions. The Burgess Oath declared that “the individual taking it would defend the religion of his country as by law established.” One party in the Associate Synod held this oath unlawful, as approving of all the abuses of the civil establishment of the Church. Another party held that it simply bound them to defend the Protestant faith against secret and open enemies. Being free to take the oath, this party was popularly termed ‘Burghers,’ and those who refuse to be sworn, the ‘Anti-Burghers.’ Erskine brothers attach themselves to the Burgher church.

Fraser of Brea’s strange writings advocating a form of universal redemption in his Justifying Faith are published posthumously by the Anti-Burgher, Thomas Mair. However, it should be noted that Fraser himself had not circulated these opinions, although he had great opportunity, and could merely have been working through these issues privately.

1752 Professor William Robertson, the leader of the Moderates, induces the Scottish General Assembly to persecute the majority of the Presbytery of Dunfermline for refusing to cooperate in the ordination of a candidate proposed by a patron against the will of the congregation.

Thomas Gillespie, one of their number, is deposed as an example for defending a congregation’s sole right to choose its own preacher.

1753 A minor split in the Reformed Presbytery due to some adopting several of the opinions expressed in Fraser of Brea’s Justifying Faith.

1757 Thomas Mair, the publisher of Fraser of Brea’s Justifying Faith, is deposed by the Anti-Burgher Synod.

William Martin, the first Irish Reformed Presbyterian preacher, is ordained at the Vow north of Kilrea on the River Bann. He would later emigrate to America with 1200 people in 1772, due to the abuses of Lord Donegall.

1760’s Dr John Witherspoon, later the Principal of Princeton College and a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, leads the Orthodox party in the Church of Scotland in successfully winning several battles against the Moderates in the Scottish General Assembly.

1761 Relief Secession – Thomas Gillespie, Thomas Boston the younger and Thomas Collier form the Presbytery of Relief.

1762 Highland Clearances begin. The chiefs betray their people and clear them off the land to ‘improve’ it by replacing the people with sheep and other ‘more profitable’ uses. This leads to a mass migration of the Highland Scots to North America.

1763 The first Irish Reformed Presbytery formed.

1773 Presbytery of Relief becomes large enough to form the Relief Synod.

1779 Irish Reformed Presbytery dissolved by the death and emigration of some of its preachers.

Irish Burgher (Seceder) Synod formed.

1780 Test Act of 1704 repealed.

1782 Irish Reformed Presbytery re-constituted.

1788 Irish Anti-Burgher (Seceder) Synod formed.

1796 The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland rejects overtures to encourage missionary work.

1797 Robert and James Haldane, disgusted by the lack of missionary zeal in the Church of Scotland, leave it to form a society of independent churches with others.

1798 Rebellion of the United Irishmen – Many of the rebels are Presbyterian, as well as Roman Catholic, and are spurred on by the example of the American War for Independence and the French Revolution.

1799 The Anti-Evangelical Moderate party in the Church of Scotland are at the peak of their power. The General Assembly bans chapels of ease, Sabbath schools and interchange of communion with evangelical churches outside of the Established Church.

Burgher Synod divides into Old Light and New Light factions. The New Light church liberalise their stance on the National Covenants and adopt the voluntary principle as opposed to the establishment principle, i.e. they deny the right of the civil magistrate to “interfere” with the Church, and of the Church to accept support from the State.

Continued...

Deliverance and Compromise in Scotland, but Continued Suffering in Ireland under William III

2007-09-23T16:11:00.001+01:00

1688 “The Glorious Revolution” – William of Orange lands at Torbay in England (4^th November) and James II flees to

France

(attempts on 11^th December and succeeds on 23^rd).

Tyrconnell raises the Jacobite forces in Ireland and by November ensures that all the principal cities’ garrisons are loyal to James, except Londonderry. The Jacobite forces reach the Walls of Derry, but find the gates locked by the Apprentice Boys (7^th December).

1689 William and Mary accede to the English (12^th February) and Scottish (11^th April) thrones.

Although the English Parliament declares that James had forfeited the throne by ‘abdicating’ and fleeing for France, the Scottish Parliament, in the Claim of Right Act, declares that he has also forfeited the crown not by ‘abdicating’ but through illegal and tyrannical actions which he committed. This list is in many cases similar to those set forth by the United Societies at Sanquhar.

The Scottish Parliament abolishes Episcopacy by the Prelacy Act and declares its purpose to establish the form of church government that is most agreeable to the people, rather than that which has divine right from the Bible.

The General Assembly of the Established Church of Scotland is re-constituted (20^th May) and the ministers from Ulster present a list of the members of its Synod to this meeting.

The Strict Covenanters called the United Societies (nicknamed the Cameronians) spend their General Meetings in this period debating their response to William III, the new government and the newly Established Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

Bloody Claverhouse, the great persecutor of the Covenanters, raises the standard for the Jacobites in Scotland at Dundee (16^th April). Although they defeat a larger Williamite army at the Battle of Killiecrankie (27^th July), Claverhouse himself is killed. A defeat of Highland forces at Dunkeld (21^st August), principally by some of the Cameronians (who were eventually to form the famous Cameronian Regiment), leads to the Jacobite forces retreating to their Highland strongholds.

James lands in Ireland at Kinsale with French and Jacobite forces (12^th March) and eventually arrives at Londonderry (18^th April) where he summons the city to surrender, but the cry goes up for the first time: “No Surrender!” Derry is besieged, but does not surrender. The people are relieved after the breaking of the boom across the River Foyle by the ship ‘Mountjoy’ and the siege ends (31^st July).

1690 Battle of the Boyne – James’ Irish forces are decisively beaten on 12^th July and he abandons his forces for France.

The United Societies divide over their response to the new church and state: some join the newly Established Presbyterian Church of Scotland and support the Williamite government, including all three Scottish ministers (Shields, Linning and Boyd), while others reject both.

The Society People who reject the new establishment (sometimes termed “the Old Dissenters”), led by the ruling elder Robert Hamilton, see themselves not as seceding from the Church of Scotland, but as being the “poor, wasted remnant” of the “true Presbyterian Church of Scotland”. These were to form the Reformed Presbyterian Churches of Scotland, Ireland, North America, Australia and Japan.

1691 The first Synod of Ulster since the time of Charles II is held (8^th April), but the only minister of the Irish United Societies, David Houston, does not join it.

The Irish Jacobites are completely beaten at the Battle of Aughrim (12^th July).

William offers the Jacobite Highland Clans a pardon (17^th August) if they take an oath of allegiance by 1^st January 1692. James allows the Highlanders to do this and some manage to take the oath before the allotted time.

1692 After the Massacre of Glencoe (13^th February), most of the Highland chiefs swear the oath of allegiance by the spring and the Jacobite Rebellion officially ends.

1696 David Houston of the Irish United Societies dies, leaving them without an Irish-based preacher for 61 years.

1697 The Irish Presbyterians begin to be harassed again by the Episcopal authorities in Ireland, where Episcopacy is still the established religion. Such harassments include:

– not being permitted to bury their dead without an Episcopal clergyman,

– not being permitted by many Episcopalian gentry from building Presbyterian church buildings on their land (the land was mainly controlled by the gentry),

– being compelled to pay tithes and other duties to the Episcopal clergymen,

– being compelled to become Episcopal church wardens and take certain official oaths against their consciences,

– being prohibited from having Presbyterian school teachers,

– the libelling of Presbyterian ministers for performing marriages,

– the libelling of the marriage parties as having committed fornication and their children declared as illegitimate, and,

– the overruling of Presbyterian local government appointments by the central government.

The Church of Scotland was restored to a large measure of spiritual freedom and liberty, but the Williamite Government established Presbyterianism in Scotland not by divine right, but as the polity preferred by the people. The Irish Presbyterians, although having a great measure of respite, continued to suffer from the Episcopal Establishment in Ireland.

The reasons for dissent from the Established Church of Scotland by the remnant of the United Societies may be summarised as follows:

1. The Church was not merely established, but was Erastian in character, and compromised the sole headship of Christ over His Church. (Erastianism refers to state control of the Church, as opposed to Establishmentism, where the state supports the Church.)

2. The vast majority of the preachers had compromised the Kingship of Christ over His Church in accepting the indulgences of the Stuart Kings, and had not confessed their sin, nor repented of it.

3. Some of the ruling elders in the Church had been foremost in the persecution of the brethren and had blood on their hands. Many, if not all, were also involved in many lesser crimes and compromises. There was no attempt to discipline these men.

4. The state of Reformation of the Church was degraded and had been based on the Acts of Parliament of 1592, rather than those of the Second Reformation of 1638.

5. The solemn Covenants that the nation and Church had made with God had been trampled under foot. These Covenants had a descending obligation because of the nature of the parties: both the nation as represented by the civil government and the Church as represented by the elders were moral, or legal, bodies whose obligations continued as long as the bodies did. These entities still existed at the time of the Revolution Settlement (and they do today) and so were (and are) still under obligation. For the same reasons, treaties between countries continue to have a binding obligation even though those who made it are dead. Sadly, nations might be held to account for their oaths with other nations, but not those with God!

For these reasons, they would be without preachers for some years because they had to wait until a properly ordained preacher would either leave the Establishment, or be trained and ordained in a foreign church, as Renwick and others had been.

The United Societies remnant’s opposition to the sinful and unlawful state of the civil government led them also to absolutely reject the civil government and refuse any recognition of it. Several would be temporarily imprisoned for this

Continued...

The Period of Persecution under Charles II and James VII/ II

2007-09-09T16:44:00.001+01:00

1660 Charles II, an exile since Worcester, is restored to the throne of England and Scotland after the death of Cromwell (1658). He throws off his former allegiance to the Scottish Presbyterians and packs the Scottish Parliament with his own supporters. An act is passed recognizing the King's authority in matters both civil and ecclesiastical, and soon prelacy (the government of the Church by bishops) is re-established by law. The Church of Scotland thrown into a furnace of 28 years' persecution.

1661 The last Synod of Ulster held until after the Williamite Revolution.

1662 “The Great Ejection” – 400 ministers ejected from their churches (as in England, where 2000 are ejected). At Edinburgh all ministers required to comply with the new order of things or leave the city and desist from preaching.

1663 Ejected ministers begin preaching in the open-air at “field meetings.” The government attempts to suppress them by fines and military force.

1666 Increasing oppression provokes an unpremeditated rising amongst the “Covenanters” (the term by which those who adhered to the old Presbyterian principles became known) in Galloway, but their ill-equipped forces overcome at Rullion Green (28^th November). This event followed by many executions and gives excuse for greater persecution – “the first time Scotland ever endured so much cruelty” (Kirkton).

1669 An Act of Indulgence promises relief (on certain conditions) to ministers who could not conform to the established order. Some accept this relief but the more resolute Covenanters refuse it. This divides the Presbyterians into the “indulged” and the “non-indulged.”

1670 “Field meetings” made treasonable and preaching at such a meeting becomes a capital offence. Nevertheless these meetings rapidly increase. About this time arms begin to be carried for self defence and “field meetings” begin to develop into “armed conventicles.”

“Through unrelenting persecution these decent congregations were transformed into what their persecutors had at first falsely asserted them to be – battalions of armed men, resolved to defy opposition, and prepared to take the field against their aggressors.” (T. McCrie.)

1679 The Covenanters rise in Galloway, condemn all the proceedings of the government since 1660, and defeat the government's forces at the battle of Drumclog (1^st June). But they fail to take Glasgow and become divided over their attitude towards those who had accepted the Indulgence and towards King Charles II.

The strict party begins to maintain that the King, by breaking his coronation oaths (made to the Presbyterians at Scone in 1651) and by assuming ecclesiastical powers, had forfeited all right to the civil obedience of his subjects. The Covenanters, disheartened by the divisions amongst their leaders, are overcome by superior numbers at Bothwell Bridge (22^nd June).

1680 “The Sanquhar Declaration” – At Sanquhar, Richard Cameron and others publicly disown Charles II as King for tyranny, breaking his coronation oaths and the laws governing the rule of the King, and covenant-breaking (22^nd June).

He and Cargill, leading the party which disowned civil allegiance, continue field-preaching; the former is killed at Ayrsmoss, or Airdsmoss, (22^nd July, 1680) and the latter executed in Edinburgh (27^th July, 1681).

“The subsequent period down to 1688 exhibits little more than a series of executions, civil and military, differing from each other only in their degrees of horror and atrocity.” (T. McCrie.)

1682 The Edict of Nantes in France leads to many Huguenots (French Presbyterians) fleeing to Ireland for refuge. They are given toleration by the Episcopal authorities, but the same toleration is withheld from the Irish Presbyterians.

1684-85 "The Killing Times" – the hottest period of persecution.

Common soldiers are empowered to put suspected persons to death without trial.

Charles II dies (6^th February, 1685) and is succeeded by his Roman Catholic brother, James II.

A daring remnant, led by James Renwick, continues to outbrave the government by continuing to hold “field meetings.”

“The Second Sanquhar Declaration” – Renwick and others, following Cameron’s example, publicly disown James II as King at Sanquhar (28^th May, 1685).

1688 Renwick captured and martyred.

John Howie in his famous book, “The Scots Worthies”, estimates that during the 28 years of persecution in Scotland “above 18,000 people, according to calculation, suffered death, or the utmost hardships and extremities.” He breaks down this number as follows:

1,700 were banished to America and 750 to the northern islands of Scotland.

3,600 were imprisoned, outlawed, or sentenced to be executed when apprehended.

680 were killed in skirmishes or died of their wounds.

7,000 voluntarily left Scotland for conscience’s sake.

362 were executed after process of law, and 498 slaughtered without process of law.

In addition to the above, "the number of those who perished through cold, hunger, and other distresses, contracted in their flight to the mountains, and who sometimes even when on the point of death were murdered by the bloody soldiers, cannot well be calculated, but will certainly make up the number above specified."

Continued...

The Second Reformation: The Covenants, the Civil War and the Westminster Standards

2007-09-08T10:43:00.001+01:00

1638 The National Covenant renewed, amidst great excitement, in Edinburgh (Feb. 28). The people stirred against “Arminianism, popery, and despotism” and the King is compelled to allow a free General Assembly to meet. The independence of the Church is re-asserted. Charles attempts to subdue

Scotland

by force but is defeated in the First and Second Bishops' Wars (1639-40).

1641 A great slaughter of Protestants takes place in Ireland, which leads to Cromwell’s Army going there to subdue the rebellion.

1642 Preachers, including John Livingston, ministering as chaplains to the Scottish Army in Ulster, set up the first presbytery in Ireland.

The Civil War commences in England.

1643 The predominantly Puritan Parliament seeks aid from Scotland and by The Solemn League and Covenant the English Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians pledge their nations to uniformity in religion according to The Word of God.

The SL&C leads to the Westminster Assembly producing a Psalter, various directories for worship and church government, The Confession of Faith, and The Larger and Shorter Catechisms.

1645 Royalist army defeated at Naseby by Parliamentary forces. Disagreement on how the defeated King should be treated occasions a breach in the English-Scottish alliance. In Second Civil War (1648) Scots fight for King against Parliament. (The Scots had no objection to monarchy as such; they strongly resented Charles's execution in 1649, and immediately declared his son, Charles II, the lawful successor to the throne.) The English army, under Cromwell, invades Scotland and obtains victory over the Scots at Dunbar (1650).

1651 The Scots crown Charles II at Scone, but at Worcester are again defeated by Cromwell, and the country remains largely under English control for next nine years. (Despite internal divisions and the interference of Cromwell, the Church of Scotland enjoyed a period of spiritual prosperity – “piety was both more intense and more widely diffused than it has ever since been in Scotland” – T. McCrie.) Students trained by Dickson in Edinburgh and by Rutherford at St. Andrews.

Continued...

Decline, Revival and the Ulster Plantation under James VI/I and Charles I

2007-09-08T10:32:00.001+01:00

1567 Mary's conduct and unprincipled marriage relationships alienate the nation and lead to her abdication. Her infant son proclaimed James VI of Scotland.

The nation governed by regents till 1578. The Protestant Regent, the Earl of Moray, assassinated in 1570 (Jan. 23). Morton, Regent from 1572-8, attempts to remove the freedom and independence of the Church of Scotland by introducing “Tulchan Bishops” into her government.

1574 The Church, leaderless since the death of Knox in 1572, is revived by the return of Andrew Melville from the Continent.

1578 James VI, aged twelve, begins to exercise his monarchy and governs through unprincipled courtiers. The Court and Church engage in a struggle which continues till 1638 over the right of the Church to govern her affairs independently of the civil powers. (James's hostility. to Presbyterianism arose from his ambition to be regarded as head of the Church. He aimed to retain the pre-Reformation episcopal organization (without the Roman faith) and by means of bishops to control the Reformed Church and her General Assemblies. In the next century the Stuarts attempted to overthrow the whole Presbyterian constitution. )

1580 The Protestant leaders pledge themselves to support the Reformed doctrine and discipline in The National Covenant.

1584 The Black Acts. The Court party predominating, Parliament overturns the independence of the Church by ordaining that no ecclesiastical assembly is to be held without the King's consent and that all ministers are to acknowledge the bishops as their ecclesiastical superiors.

1592 The legislation of 1584 repealed and the Presbyterian discipline re-established. James, controlled temporarily by the force of public opinion, professes to be a true Presbyterian.

1596 The National Covenant renewed. A revival of religion and a remarkable General Assembly at Edinburgh. (This was sunshine before a storm and proved to be the last true General Assembly till 1638.)

1603-18 James VI (James I of England from 1603) establishes bishops by royal authority, packs and bribes General Assemblies, exiles the leading Presbyterians and by the Articles of Perth (1618) seeks to conform Scottish worship to the pattern of the Anglican church.

1606 First Scots plantation in Ulster.

1607-10 Gaelic Earls flee Ulster in the North of Ireland (1607), and James I begins the Plantation of Ulster (1610) with loyal British subjects, the majority of whom were lowland Scots or English Puritans. Ulster would also be blessed with Huguenot, Waldensian and German Reformed refugees in its early post-Reformation period.

1613-34 “Prescopacy” – Various Scottish Presbyterian and English Puritan preachers come to Ulster where they exercise their ministry within the Episcopalian Church of Ireland without compromising their principles, due to the tolerance of a number of the Irish bishops.

The ‘Reformed’ Irish Articles are adopted by the Church of Ireland in 1615. These were authored by the godly Archbishop Ussher and were to have a profound influence on the Westminster Standards.

The success of the Presbyterian ministers in Ireland was to lead to opposition by the bishops and their eventual ejection.

1625-34 “The Sixmilewater Revival” – Many of the Scots in Ulster were the “scum of the earth”, but a great revival broke out in East Antrim through the preaching of Robert Blair and others, and the character of Ulster was changed. This was fuelled by regular meetings for fellowship amongst the Presbyterian ministers and inter-congregational celebrations of the Lord’s Supper.

1625-30 “The Irvine and Kirk o’ Shotts Revivals” – This dark period broken by a series of powerful revivals in Scotland, as the movement of the Spirit in Ulster travels across the Irish Sea, particularly under the preaching of David Dickson at Irvine and Stewarton (1625-30), and John Livingston at Kirk o’ Shotts – where about 500 people ascribed their conversion to one sermon (June 21, 1630). “One of the largest manifestations of the Spirit that hath been seen since the days of the apostles.” Many of the minsters involved in the Sixmilewater Revival were also involved in the Kirk o’ Shotts Revival.

Charles I, who succeeded to the thrones of England and Scotland in 1625, pursues his father's anti-Presbyterian policy with renewed vigour, spurred on by Archbishop Laud.

1636 The first attempted emigration of Presbyterians from Ireland on the Eagle Wing, in emulation of the Pilgrims’ exodus from religious persecution.

1637 Charles attempts to introduce a liturgy composed by Laud into the Church of Scotland. It is rejected in Edinburgh and throughout the country. Jenny Geddes flings her famous stool at the Dean of Edinburgh in the High Kirk, Edinburgh.

Continued...

First Scottish Reformation: Hamilton, Wishart and Knox

2007-09-02T16:42:00.008+01:00

1517 Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses to door of the church building in Wittenberg (31^st October).

Popery prevails everywhere in Scotland except for the presence of many Lollards in the South-West. Prior to the Reformation, Lollards (possibly from the Dutch meaning "Singers", referring to their Psalm singing) were persecuted and a number were burned.

1517-20 Patrick Hamilton, the first Scottish Reformer, is converted through Luther’s writings in Paris sometime in this period.

1523 Hamilton returns to Scotland and preaches the true Gospel.

1527 Hamilton is charged with heresy and flees Scotland with three others for Germany, where he assists with the Lutheran Reformation. He returns to Scotland towards the end of the year.

1528 Hamilton is burnt to death in St Andrews (28^th February). “The reek of Patrick Hamilton has infected as many as it did blow upon.”

1538 George Wishart is summoned for ‘heresy’, but escapes to England. He preaches and teaches in England, Germany, and possibly Switzerland, and translates the Helvetic Confession into English.

James V marries Mary of Lorraine, of the House of Guise.

1542 James V dies. The infant Mary Stuart becomes Mary Queen of Scots at the age of one week.

1543 The Earl of Arran becomes Regent and initially assists the Reformation.

Alliance with English annulled and old alliance with France renewed.

1543-5 Wishart returns to Scotland sometime in this period. John Knox attaches himself to Wishart.

1546 Wishart is burnt to death in St Andrews (1^st March). Knox was willing to defend him with the sword, but Wishart sends him away for his own safety.

In total, 20 men and women would be killed, usually by burning, during the First Scottish Reformation. Others were banished, or punished in other ways.

1547 Knox is called to the ministry, but is captured by the invading French forces and made a galley slave.

1548 The Scots Parliament break-off the betrothal of Mary Queen of Scots with the godly ‘Boy King’ Edward VI of England, and engage her to the French Dauphin.

1549 Knox is freed, apparently through the influence of Edward VI, and preaches in England.

1550 Knox preaches against the Mass in Newcastle and is made to defend his opinion by the Bishop of Durham before a public assembly. He defends his position so well that he silences his opponents and the Reformation progresses in the North of England.

1551-52 Knox advises Thomas Cranmer on the revision of the English Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayer (BCP). He is offered the Bishopric of Rochester, but declines it.

1553 Mary Tudor, a devout Papist, becomes Queen of England, leading to the flight of some English preachers to Scotland, including William Harlow and John Willock.

1554 Arran is deposed from the Regency and it is given to the Queen Mother, Mary of Guise, a devout Papist.

Knox flees from ‘Bloody Mary’s” England to Dieppe in France. He settles in Geneva for a time. Knox is called to minister to the congregation of English exiles in Frankfort. He arrives to find disagreements between various parties over adherence to the forms of the 1552 BCP. He resolves this dispute, with Calvin’s assistance.

1555 Dr Cox comes to Frankfort from England and stirs-up trouble over the BCP again. Knox tries to conciliate the newcomers by allowing them to vote (against the advice of his friends) and is thanked for this by their voting that he should have no more influence in the congregation! The Coxians conspire against him and seek to cause trouble for him with the civil authorities. The authorities see through the Coxian rouse, but are constrained to advise him to leave.

1555-6 Knox visits Scotland, where he assists with the Reformation. He accepts a call from the Knoxian remnant from Frankfort, who had moved to Geneva. The Bishops in Scotland burn him in effigy after his departure.

1557 Protestant Scottish nobility draw up The First Covenant and become known as the ‘Lords of the Congregation’.

1558 Mary, Queen of Scots, is married to the Dauphin in France. Several of the influential Scottish Romanists are poisoned by their French co-religionists while attending this event!

The last Reformation martyr, Walter Mill, is burned at the stake (28^th April).

1559 Knox returns to Scotland in answer to a call from the Protestant nobles.

Various civil measures are attempted by the Papists. The Protestant nobles are threatened with violence and take-up arms in self-defence.

Various bonds, or covenants, are sworn, which is a common practice among the Protestants throughout Europe.

Mary Queen of Scots’ husband becomes Francis II, King of France. She is still in France.

The Queen Mother, Mary of Guise, is deprived of the regency.

The Lords of the Congregation enter into alliance with the Protestant English Government of Queen Elizabeth.

1560 English forces assist the Scottish in expelling the French military forces, which have been assisting in the attempted suppression of the Reformation for 13 years.

Queen Mother dies of natural causes.

Scottish Parliament under the guidance of Knox declares the Reformed Faith to be the national religion. The Scots Confession and First Book of Discipline are produced by the ‘Six Johns’, including Knox. Parliament approves them and condemns Popery (17^th August).

King Francis II of France dies (5^th December) after only reigning for one year. Mary has only been married for two years.

The General Assembly of the Reformed Church of Scotland meets for the first time (20^th December).

1561 The young Queen Mary Stuart returns to Scotland after being brought-up as a Papist in the licentious French court, and assumes the reins of government. She attempts to revive the interests of her faith by gaining the favour of the nobility.

1563 Mary tries to get Knox condemned for treason, but he is acquitted by the nobility.

1567-8 Mary's conduct and unprincipled marriage relationships alienate the nation and lead to her abdication. She flees to England and her infant son is proclaimed James VI of Scotland. The nation is governed by regents for 10 years.

1570 The Protestant Regent, the Earl of Moray, is assassinated (23^rd January). Under the Regency of Mar and Lennox, the nobility are divided into factions again. Knox’s life is in such danger that he accepts the advice of friends to move from Edinburgh to St Andrews.

1572 “Tulchan Bishops” – Morton, Regent from 1572-8, introduces nominal bishops into the former benefices through means of a select convention of compliant ministers, so that he and other ‘nobles’ can benefit from the income of the church lands. This is similar to the avarice displayed by the English aristocrats, instead of giving back to the people what the ‘Church’ had amassed. The General Assembly opposes him.

“The greater part of the Scots ministers were a simple and facile race of men, easily deceived or overawed; that persons of weak or worldly minds were easily found, who, for fear of offending the great, or losing their livings, fell in with the measures of the court; and... had it not been for a few active and energetic spirits, stirred up from time to time by a gracious Providence to stem the tide of defection, they would, on more than one occasion, have bartered away their dearest privileges without a struggle.” (McCrie)

St Bartholomew’s Massacre in France (24^th August).

Knox dies peacefully in his bed of old age, after a spiritual assault from the Devil (24^th November). “Here lies he that neither feared nor flattered any flesh.” (Regent Morton)

Continued...

Outline of Scottish and Irish Presbyterianism

2007-09-02T16:35:00.001+01:00

I recently wrote this for a friend who is an American pastor thatwanted an overview of the Scottish Reformation and Covenanting period, as well as what happened afterwards.

The Reformation and Covenanting Period is an OCR scan of an outline at the beginning of the Banner of Truth edition of Alexander Smellie's Men of the Covenant, in which I have interpolated some additional material, particularly referring to the development of Irish Presbyterianism.

The Post-Covenanting Period is completely my own work and is written from a modern RP perspective, with some material relating to the American connection.

As always, I appreciate any constructive feedback, esp. corrections.

PCI Board Placates Homosexuals

2007-09-01T22:54:00.001+01:00

Although rightly pastorally sensitive regarding homosexuals, the PCI's Board of Social Witness'
"Social Issues and Resources Panel Pastoral Guidelines - Homosexuality" distorts the Biblical emphases around this sin, condemns Biblically acceptable statements and placates homosexuals. This report was received (not adopted) by a small majority, and a motion to send it down to presbyteries for consideration was narrowly defeated by 168 to 163.

See this report for some disturbing comments from Ken Newell. As if it isn't hard enough battling the humanist, atheist and homosexual lobbies, without having to deal with this! Talk about the enemy within!

Petrol/ Gas Prices: UK vs. US

2007-08-04T09:36:00.000+01:00

We recently compared the price of a journey in the US vs. the same in the UK. The 571 mile round trip at 43 miles/gallon costs £118 ($236) in the UK, but only £17.50 ($35) in the US ($2.55/gallon + 16¢/gallon SC sales tax). It is down to all the "stealth tax" that Gordon Brown is ripping us off with in the name of the environment.

Flood Geology and the English Channel

2007-07-19T12:14:00.000+01:00

A recent sonar study of the English Channel has confirmed the theory that it was formed by a cataclysmic flood released from a giant lake. I wonder what a worldwide flood would do?

Sexual Orientation Regulations (SOR) Starting to Hit

2007-07-19T11:53:00.000+01:00

Hereford Diocese has lost a case against a man who brought them to court over turning him down for a youth work job because he was a homosexual. The judgement is confusing in that on the one hand the tribunal stated that "[t]he respondents discriminated against the claimant on the grounds of sexual orientation", yet on the other "the tribunal found that the bishop should only have considered the present lifestyle of Mr Reaney, who is single, and he should have not questioned his future relationships." What if the man was in a homosexual relationship at present?

During his evidence, the Bishop of Hereford said he had made clear to Mr Reaney that a person in a committed sexual relationship outside of marriage, whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual or transgender, would be turned down for the post. After the judgement, he stated, "I still think the decision I made was the right one." Good man!

Show your support to the Bishop here: a.holden@hereford.anglican.org.

The full article can be seen here.

Thanksgiving to God for National Deliverance

2007-07-12T11:15:00.000+01:00

We give thanks to God again for deliverance from the bloody House of Stuart through the imperfect William of Orange. May God deliver us again from those who seek to destroy the Kingdom of Christ in our nation.

See here for a more extensive post on the Twelfth.

Dawkins is Half-right

2007-06-24T15:57:00.000+01:00

"And he opened the bottomless pit, and smoke arose out of the pit like the smoke of a great furnace... Then out of the smoke locusts came upon the earth... The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron, and the sound of their wings was like the sound of chariots with many horses running into battle. They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails. Their power was to hurt men five months." (Revelation 9)

The thing about Dawkins is that, like many men, part of what he says is true. Dawkins says that religion causes war and all manner of suffering. This is partially true. False religion does cause war and suffering, but so do all false belief systems, including Atheism.

Conveniently he forgets that Atheism is a belief system, and what it has historically led to. Think of the French Revolution (2 million dead), Stalin (60 million dead), Mao (more than 40 to 72 million dead), the Khmer Rouge (2 million dead), and Communism in general. We may even include Nazism as basically an Atheistic belief system (55 million dead). I doubt that even the medieval Roman Catholic Church and Islam can beat these numbers.

What shall we say of the millions of abortions that have taken place as a result of humanism (527 to 836 million dead)? What a utopia Atheism brings in!

(You can see that I interpret Revelation in a symbolic/ spiritual way, and that I believe that Chapter 9 teaches that various false belief systems arise from the Devil's bottomless pit to deceive men, leading to suffering, and war in particular.)

Continued...

Animal Rights and the Christian

2007-06-24T15:29:00.000+01:00

I've been reading through Proverbs in the morning and Proverbs 12:10 hadn't struck Mary before, so I thought I'd pass it on:

"A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel."

What was Banned from Discussion in the PCI for 5 Years?

2007-06-17T14:56:00.000+01:00

For 18 years from 1868 to 1886, every General Assembly of the mainstream Presbyterian Church in Ireland (PCI) was exercised by the lawfulness of using musical instruments in worship. It caused such a controversy that it was banned for 5 years. You can read about this in Thomas Hamilton's History of Presbyterianism in Ireland (pp. 186, 187). What happened next, I don't know, but clearly they eventually adopted the practice. However, at this point they followed the historical practice of the Presbyterian, Reformed and Baptist churches in excluding them as they were part of the temple worship and not NT practice.

It is interesting to consider how many conservative Presbyterians are troubled by the increase in the use of orchestras in worship. In many ways this is a more consistent application of the Temple practice of musical instruments where a Levitical orchestra (as well as choir) served. Consider the multitude of instruments in Psalm 150, for instance.

Baptists may be interested to note that Charles Spurgeon rejected the introduction of an organ into his church: "The great congregation which is blessed with the privilege of listening to His instruction has no organ ‘to assist' them in singing their praises to their God and Saviour. They find their vocal organs sufficient. Their tongues and voices express the gratitude of their hearts... I would just as soon pray to God with machinery as to sing to God with machinery."

Although the Methodist Church was a break-away from the Anglican (or Episcopalian) church, John Wesley was also surprisingly opposed to the use of organs in worship. This despite the fact that this church was responsible for the production of many of the great hymns and for leading American Presbyterianism into the use of man-made hymns earlier than other branches of the P&R churches. In fact even in 1808 the British Methodist Conference continued to ban the use of organs. It should be noted that some instruments had begun to be used prior to this.

See these quotes from prominent figures in Church history against the use of instruments in worship. Various articles, including some written by the great Southern Presbyterians Robert Dabney and John Giradeau, may be found here.

I leave you with this quote from the Presbyterian Board of Publications (Philadelphia) in 1842:

Question 6. Is there any authority for instrumental music in the worship of God under the present dispensation?

Answer. Not the least, only the singing of psalms and hymns and spiritual songs was appointed by the apostles; not a syllable is said in the New Testament in favor of instrumental music nor was it ever introduced into the Church until after the eighth century, after the Catholics had corrupted the simplicity of the gospel by their carnal inventions. It was not allowed in the Synagogues, the parish churches of the Jews, but was confined to the Temple service and was abolished with the rites of that dispensation.

Click here for the answer...