"Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis

Kevin DeYoung gives us some cautions when reading CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity".

Cautions for Mere Christianity

C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity is a classic. It is a winsome, thoughtful, well-written defense of the Christian faith. Some of its better known sections–like the famous liar, lunatic, Lord, trilemma–have become part of the way evangelicals think and speak. No doubt God has used Lewis and Mere Christianity to awaken affections for Christ, engage the mind for Christ, and remove obstacles for the Spirit to draw people to Christ. I’m thankful for all this. More than that, I’ve benefited from every Lewis book I’ve read.

But C.S. Lewis was not an evangelical. Mere Christianity shows why.

Let me highlight two significant problems.

Atonement, But How?
The first caution to raise concerns Lewis’ view of the atonement. Lewis believed Jesus died on the cross for sin, but he didn’t think it was important to understand the particulars of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem quite so immoral and silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor an other is Christianity. The central belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter: A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work. (57-58 [pagination varies by edition)

Later Lewis says that “Christ was killed for us” and “His death has washed out our sins” but “any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary” (59). This impatience of careful thinking about the atonement is bad enough, but then Lewis goes on to make clear that he rejects the understanding of the atonement evangelicals (and the Bible I would say) find most central and most glorious.

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before–the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. (59)

Pay careful attention to what Lewis says in that paragraph. He does believe in a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but he rejects penal substitution. He admits that penal substitution is not quite as silly as it once sounded, but he still does not accept it. Instead, he argues that Christ pays a debt (which is true), but not as a punishment for our sakes.

Lewis’ theology of the atonement is confusing (see for example this helpful Touchstone article), but I would argue his view is more like Christus victor or ransom to Satan than penal substitution. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a sacrifice to the Witch and was explained rather ambiguously as “deeper magic.” This is not the place to defend the critical importance of penal substitution. My point is simply that Lewis does not teach it in Mere Christianity, and in fact undermines it.

An Early Inclusivist
The second problem with Mere Christianity is Lewis’ inclusivism. Evangelicals believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God. Further, they believe that conscious faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation (assuming we are talking about sentient beings; all Christians allow that infants and the mentally disabled may be in a different category). Lewis, by contrast, believed in what we might roughly call “anonymous Christians.” That is, people may be saved through Christ without putting explicit faith in Christ.

There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. (178)

No matter how much we may like Lewis, this is simply a profound misunderstanding of the Spirit’s mission (and a rejection of John 14:6). The work of the Holy Spirit is to bring glory to Christ by taking what is his–his teaching, the truth about his death and resurrection–and making it known. The Spirit does not work indiscriminately without the revelation of Christ in view. Arguably, the Holy Spirit’s most important work is to glorify Christ, and he does not do this apart from shining the spotlight on Christ for the elect to see and savor. Again, we see the inclusivist Lewis at the end on Narnia where Emeth, a worshiper of Tash, is accepted by Aslan for following him all along without knowing it.

All that to say, yes, I have some cautions when it comes to Mere Christianity. Good book. But some serious deficiencies.

Meditation for the Lord's Day Evening

"I will ponder all your work, and meditate on your mighty deeds." ~ Psalm 77:12 

"I will meditate also of all thy work. Sweet work to enter into Jehovah’s work of grace, and there to lie down and ruminate, every thought being absorbed in the one precious subject." (C.H. Spurgeon, Treasury of David)

Meyers Missouri Presbytery Report (Federal Vision)

Here is Missouri Presbytery's Report on their findings into TE Jeff Meyers on whether or not he is teaching federal vision theology. 

Missouri Presbytery’s final report from the committee investigating TE Jeffrey Meyers is available here. I believe that this document will prove to be one of the more important Federal Vision documents to be released in a while. It is a rather complete statement of the issues on baptism, covenant, and justification by a prominent Federal Visionist to a friendly PCA Court.

I plan to post each section in separate posts here on Johannes Weslianus for comment and discussion. The links to the sections available in separate blog posts are as follows:

1. Introduction
2. Views on Covenant Theology
3. Views on Theology of the Imputation of Christ’s Merit
4. View on Theology of Baptism
5. Views on Theology of Perseverance
6. Views on Theology of Justification
7. Report of the Subcommittee Investigating Process and Injurious Reports
8. TE Meyers’ Letter of Apology
9. Conclusion
10. Meyers’ Q & A — I. Covenant
11. Meyers’ Q & A — II. The Imputation of Christ’s Merit
12. Meyers’ Q & A — III. Baptism
13. Meyers’ Q & A — IV. Perseverance
14. Meyers’ Q & A — V. Justification

Here is a timeline of the relevant events in this controversy. Please check back for further updates.

Missouri Presbytery Exonerates TE Jeffrey Meyers - Federal Vision

Here are two links to Wes White's blog where he describes Missouri Presbytery's TE Jeffrey Meyers having been exonerated on charges of holding to false teaching called the Federal Vision.

http://www.weswhite.net/2011/01/mo-presbytery-exonerates-federal-visionist-jeffrey-meyers-of-all-theological-errors/

http://www.weswhite.net/2011/01/mo-presbyterys-specific-exonerations-of-te-meyers/

"The Market Day of the Soul" by Clifton Rankin

The Sunday before Christmas, as I headed home from worship, I looked over at Parkdale Mall and noticed that there was nary a parking place to be had. The Sunday after Christmas (which was the day after), as I headed home from worship, the same parking lot was filled to the brim with automobiles, as people fought to get after-Christmas deals, use their gift cards, and return all those clothes that were too small.

However, on Christmas Day, I drove past the same mall and not a car was to be seen; except for a few news vans parked outside of KJAC channel 4. Granted, I realize that I live in a fallen world, and that I can’t expect non-Christians to reverence the Lord’s Day, but I could not help but wish that the same respect given to Christmas Day, would be given to the day each week that the Lord commands us to “keep.” Because we are “prone to wander,” it is imperative that at least once every seven days, we be reminded of our need to worship the Triune God, and to think about His grace that has been poured out upon sinners.

As 2011 draws near, may we as God’s people take seriously His day; for His eternal glory, and for our eternal good.

8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. (Exodus 20:8-11)

Is This All I Get--After So Much Trouble? - John Newton

"Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, because I have overcome the world." John 16:33

Dear Brother,
Blessed be God for the news of a better world, where there will be no sin, trouble, nor defect forever!

What shall it be--when the Lord shall call us up to join with those who are now singing before the eternal throne!

What shall it be--when all the children of God, who in different ages and countries have been scattered abroad--shall be all gathered together, and enter into that glorious and eternal rest provided for them!

What shall it be--when there shall not be one trace of sin or sorrow remaining--not one discordant note to be heard, nothing to disturb or defile, or alleviate the never-ceasing joy!

Many a weary step we have taken, since the Lord first drew us to Himself; but we shall not have to tread the past way over again. Some difficulties may remain--but we know not how few. Perhaps before we are aware, the Lord may cut short our conflict and say, "Come up hither!" At the most, it cannot be very long! He who has been with us thus far--will be with us to the end. He knows how to cause our consolations to exceed our greatest afflictions!

And when we get safely home--we shall not complain that we have suffered too much along the way. We shall not say, "Is this all I get--after so much trouble?" No! When we awake in that glorious world, we shall in an instant--be satisfied with His likeness. One sight of Jesus as He is--will fill our hearts, and dry up all our tears!

"I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us." Romans 8:18

Sensual Worship — A Sign of Impending Apostasy

Sensual Worship - A Sign of Impending Apostasy by Iain Murray

When interest in the churches begins to centre round the visual and the sensual it is commonly a sign of impending apostasy. By ‘sensual’ I mean that which appeals to the senses of man (sight, smell, hearing), as opposed to ‘spirit’, that is, the capacity that belongs to those born of the Spirit of God. Hence the antithesis, ‘sensual, having not the Spirit’ (Jude 19). ‘Sensual’ is also translated ‘natural’ or ‘worldly’; the meaning is the same. It does not take regeneration to give the sensual or the aesthetic a religious appeal to the natural man or woman.

In the Old Testament the people of God were in measure taught by their senses as God imposed the form of worship. As a check against any misuse of that means of teaching no additions to or subtractions from it were allowed. But with the finished work of Christ, and the coming of the Holy Spirit, a momentous change took place. The church was raised to the higher privilege of worship in ‘spirit and truth’ (John 4:24). She belongs to the ‘Jerusalem which is above’ (Gal. 4:26).

In the words of John Owen, ‘the naked simplicity of gospel institutions’ was established in the place of ‘the old, glorious worship of the temple’; Levitical choirs, incense, vestments, etc. — all were gone. Yet not gone permanently; for as church and world gradually came together in the rise of the Papacy, worship that appealed to the senses was reintroduced. Presuming on Old Testament practice, what the gospel had ended in the apostolic age was restored, and the difference brought in by Pentecost disappeared.¹ Instead there developed a form of worship in Roman Catholicism which made impressions on the senses at the natural level and which did not need the Holy Spirit.

In the words of Richard Bennett, long a Roman priest, ‘The ritual, symbolical richness of the sacramental life of the Church, to a great extent, meets the human need for transcendence.’² It does no more than that. The observation of W. H. Griffith Thomas, writing on ‘Spiritual Worship’, is true:

It is the universal experience of Christian people that the more the senses are attracted, fascinated, and occupied, the less room there is for the action of the soul. The teaching of Christian History points very clearly to the fact that simplicity of outward ceremonial has been usually unaccompanied by the reality of the inward spirit of worship.³

This is where the neglect of church history and Scripture has serious consequences for many contemporary evangelical churches. In the 1960s, at a time when the churches were losing their hold on young people, it was believed that a new way of renewing contact with them was to be learned from the contemporary culture. Music appeals to all, and why not make use of the new style of music and accompaniments which had become so popular? After all, music has to be neutral, so why not make it an ally?⁴ Some put it more strongly. James Ryle ‘prophesied’ that ‘God is getting ready to anoint Christian musicians with the same anointing that was given to the Beatles’, and he attributed to God the words, ‘I had a purpose, and the purpose was to usher in the charismatic renewal with music revival around the world.’⁵

Few warning voices were to be heard. Martyn Lloyd-Jones was almost alone in the 1960s in England when he warned against ‘the increasing tendency at the present time’ to use music to produce emotion; the justification being that music can make people happy, and when people feel happy they will find Christianity more acceptable. When an older generation sometimes expressed misgivings at the change this thinking had brought into public worship, they were told not to put their wishes before those of the outsiders whom the church needed to win. Few saw the danger pinpointed by Lloyd-Jones: the impression of music on natural feelings was being confused with spiritual truth: ‘Because it [music] is performed in connection with a religious service or by Christians, people imagine and persuade themselves that they are feeling the truth. But they are not. This feeling has no direct connection with what they have believed.’⁶

With this new departure came a flood of musical innovations into evangelical churches worldwide. The instruments of the old temple worship, as well as others, were restored, and with ‘music teams’, ‘music directors’, public worship has undergone a transformation.

It would be a mistake to say the change has come simply from the initiative of evangelicals. The Roman Catholic Church is no less involved, and in her case the new thinking was not new at all. It was under the Papacy, in the later Middle Ages, that the Church first commonly took up the use of instrumental music. At the time of the Reformation, Erasmus complained of the Roman Church:

We have brought into our churches a certain operose and theatrical music . . . as I think was ever heard in any of the Grecian or Roman theatres. The Church rings with the noise of trumpets, pipes and dulcimers; and human voices strive to bear their part with them . . . Men run to church as to a theatre, to have their ears tickled.⁷

The Reformers rejected the paraphernalia of musical accompaniments, not because they did not appreciate the place of congregational song in the worship of God but, on the contrary, because they wanted its restoration to New Testament simplicity. In the words of Calvin: ‘In gospel times we must not have recourse to these, unless we wish to destroy the evangelical perfection, and to obscure the meridian light which we enjoy in Christ.’⁸ Far from having any right to claim the support of Scripture for what Rome had introduced, he further says: ‘Now that Christ has appeared, and the church has reached full age, it were only to bury the light of the gospel, should we introduce the shadows of a departed dispensation.’⁹

The Church of Rome, in her apostasy, has long exhibited the full outworking of the danger which evangelicalism has been ignoring. But sometimes protest coming from an unexpected quarter broke the silence. Richard Bennett, after finishing his education at the Angelicum University of Rome, served as a priest in Trinidad. In all his years there, he writes, Protestant Christians from overseas sometimes came to services,

saw our sacred oils, holy water, medals, statues, vestments, rituals, and never said a word! The marvellous style, symbolism, music, and artistic taste of the Roman Church were all very captivating. Incense not only smells pungent, but to the mind it spells mystery. One day, a woman challenged me (the only Christian ever to challenge me in all my twenty-two years as a priest), 'You Roman Catholics have a form of godliness, but you deny its power.' Those words bothered me for some time because the lights, banners, folk music, guitars and drums were dear to me. Clearly I was unable to apply the Scripture to my life where it mattered most.¹⁰

The change in public worship in evangelical churches is not the harmless thing it is thought to be. ‘So long as there is good preaching’, it is said, ‘we need not be overly concerned.’ We ought to be concerned! An appetite is being fed which in the past has led to the very abandonment of the gospel. When satisfying the ‘natural’ becomes acceptable in churches, the spiritual will not long remain. As the long-time Catholic, and later Protestant martyr, Hugh Latimer, warned, ‘When candles go up, preaching comes down.’

That music has great prominence in modern society is not in doubt. Nor is it the first time that such attention has been given to music in periods of decadence. Horatius Bonar noted:

In connection with the 'decline and fall' of the Roman Empire, a singular fact has been recorded. — When the arts were declining, — poetry, sculpture, painting, deteriorating, — religion and patriotism decaying, — music was cultivated to an extraordinary extent. Old Romans died music-mad.¹¹

Accommodating the churches to contemporary culture may increase numbers (for a time); it has never led to a spiritual awakening. Unless there is a God-given change, it is to be feared that we will see in evangelicalism a developing apostasy.

---

Notes:

1. ‘Dislike of the purity and simplicity of the gospel worship is that which was the rise of, and gave increase or progress unto the whole Roman apostasy. Men do not like the plain institutions of Christ, but are pleased with the meretricious Roman paint, wherewith so great a part of the world hath been beguiled and infatuated.’ John Owen, Works, 20:114-5, also identified as his Exposition of Hebrew, vol. 4 in the Goold/Banner of Truth edition. Likewise he argues that what was being addressed in the Epistle to the Hebrews was the temptation of professing Christians to regret the loss of the visual glory of Judaism. Owen’s Nature and Causes of Apostasy from the Gospel, in his Works, vol. 7, is unsurpassed as a treatment of the subject.

2. Richard Bennett, Catholicism: East of Eden (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2010), p. 44.

3. W. H. Griffith Thomas, The Catholic Faith, A Manual of Instruction for Members of the Church of England (London: Church Book Room Press, 1955), p. 147.

4. That music is ‘neutral’ is by no means always true. ‘Since music should help the reception of the Word of God, it should be weighty, dignified, majestic and modest; fitting attitudes for sinful creatures in the presence of God’ (Calvin).

5. Quoted by John MacArthur, Charismatic Chaos (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), p. 72.

6. Living Water, Studies in John (Wheaton: Crossway, 2009), p. 365. He added: ‘If you start clapping your hands or stamping your feet or moving them in a rhythmic manner, you are the whole time dealing with this realm of the emotions. And there is a great deal of that today. Some even deliberately employ psychological methods — different coloured lights, for instance, to prey upon the emotions’ (p. 366).

7. Quoted by John L.Girardeau, Instrumental Music in the Public Worship of the Churc (Richmond, VA; 1888), p. 162. R. L. Dabney, reviewing and commending Girardeau’s book, made the same point as Dr Lloyd-Jones: ‘Blinded men are ever prone to imagine that they have religious feelings, because they have sensuous, animal feelings, in accidental juxtaposition with religious places, words, or sights. This is the pernicious mistake which has sealed up millions of self-deceived souls in hell.’ Dr Girardeau’s Instrumental Music in Public Worship, A Review (Richmond, VA: 1889), p. 8.

8. On 1 Samuel 18:1-9.

9. On Psalm 92:3, quoted by C. H. Spurgeon, whose church also used no instrumental accompaniment, The Treasury of David, vol. 4 (London; Marshall, Morgan, & Scott, 1950), p. 123. Many Protestant churches have used one instrument instead of a precentor to set the tune; this is very different from the instrumental accompaniment that is now promoted.

10. Catholicism: East of Eden, pp. 9-10.

11. Horatius Bonar, Our Ministry (Edinburgh: MacNiven 1883), p. 74.

Artists Build the Church???

Just a few minutes ago I posted a comment in response to one commenter on The Gospel Coalition Website Blog and to an article as a whole.  It was then deleted a few moments later, but I wanted my comment to be public.  It is the following:

I want to respond to 'yuck' (at least at the beginning of my response and then to the article as a whole) who stated that we should be asking 'Who do we worship?' and I assume that that is instead of 'How should we worship'???  Well, we worship the Lord God Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.  What does He say about how to worship Him?  That is the only thing that matters isn't it?  How I want to worship HIM means very little.  If I chose, I could worship Him in the corporate setting by reading a good book about Him, but would He be pleased?  No.  He says in the context of worship in Dt. 12, "You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."  I think that is pretty clear.  He never tells me to read a good book about Him (outside of the Bible) during corporate worship.

Okay, who builds the Church?  Artists?  Nope, God's Word says, "The one who speaks in a tongue builds up himself, but the one who prophesies builds up the church."  What did the prophets do?  They spoke God's Word.  God's Word is what builds up the Church.  What else does God's Word say about God's Word?   "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."  Oh yes, God's Word builds up the Church spiritually.  What about physically?  Yes, the Word of God builds physically the Church.  "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim);  because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved...everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?"  And what were they preaching?  Yes, that's right, the Word of God. 

Artists don't build the Church, I as a Pastor don't build the Church, Christ Jesus the Head of the Church tells us how the Church is built...by His living and active Word, which is sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.  I'd like to see an Artist do that!

The Church needs to return to what Jesus says is important on how to build the Church physically and spiritually, and that is His own Word: Read, Preached, Prayed, Sung...

Conclusion: This article is hogwash, false teaching, and is of devil.  Don't be led astray.

The Only Holy Day is the Lord’s Day

Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland on Festival Days

December 10,

Session 17, 1638

And next in particular, concerning festival days findeth that in the explication of the first head of the first book of discipline it was thought good that the feasts of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, with the feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs and Virgin Mary be utterly abolished because they are neither commanded nor warranted by Scripture and that such a observe them be punished by Civil Magistrates. Here utter abolition is craved and not reformation of abuses only and that because the observation of such feasts have no warrant from the word of God. In the General Assembly held at Edinburgh Anno 1556 the large confession of Helvetia was approved but with special exception against the same five days which are now urged upon us. It was not then the Popish observation only, with the Popish opinion of worship and merit, which was disallowed; (for so the reformed Kirk in Helvetia did not observe them) but simpliciter all observation. For this end was read a letter in Latin, sent at that time by some of our divines to certain divines in these parts to this purpose. In the Assembly holden 15 5. in August, complaint was made against the Ministers and Readers beside Aberdeen; because they assembled the people to preaching and prayers upon certain festival days: So that preaching and prayers upon festival days was judged rebukable. It was ordained likewise, that complaint be made to the Regent, upon the town of Drumfreis, for urging and convoying a Reader to the Kirk with Cabrfet and Whistle, to read Prayers, all the holy days of Christmas, upon the refusal of their own Reader. Among the articles directed by this Assembly to the Regent: It was craved that all holy days hereto-fore keeped holy, beside the Lords day, such as Yuleday, and Saints days, and such others may be abolished, and a certain penalty appointed for banqueting, playing, feasting upon these days. In the Assembly held in April, Anno 1577. It was ordained that the visitors with the advice of the Synodal Assembly, should admonish Ministers, preaching or administrating the Communion at Easter, or Christmas, or other like superstitious times, or Readers reading, to desist, under the pain of deprivation. In the ninth head of the first book of Discipline, the reason is set down against Easter Communion. Your honours are not ignorant how superstitiously the people run to that action at Pascheven; as if the time gave virtue to the Sacrament, and how the rest of the whole year, they are careless and negligent as if it appertained not to them, but at that time only. And for this reason, other times were appointed by that book, for that holy action. In the Assembly holden 1596, begun in March 1595, at which time the Covenant was renewed, superstition and idolatry breaking forth in observing festival days; setting out of bonfires, singing carols, are reckoned amongst the corruptions which were to be amended: And the pulpits did sound from time to time, against all show of observing any festival day whatsoever, except the Lords day.

Why Should Protestants NOT Mix With Roman Catholics?

Over a decade ago there was this push for evangelicals and catholics to find a common ground where they could live together.  What came about was called "Evangelicals and Catholics Together".  But I am here to tell you that Protestants and even more specifically Presbyterians are not to intermingle with Catholics.  You won't find a common ground.  The one place there has to be a common ground is on the Gospel, specifically justification.  But you won't find it.  You can look for the rest of your lifetime and you can try to redefine words to try to make it work, but it will not happen.  This is why we are Protestants because we Protest against Roman Catholicism and their heretical views.  

Well, I bring all this up because I was alerted to a letter Charles Hodge wrote to Pope Pius IX after being invited to the first Vatican Council.  How did he respond for his fellow Presbyterian brethren?

The text of a letter written by Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the USA, explaining why the Pope's invitation to Protestants to send delegates to the first Vatican Council of 1869-70 was beind declined.

To Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome,

By your encyclical letter dated 1869 you invite Protestants to send delegates to the Council called to meet at Rome during the month of December of the current year. That letter has been brought to the attention of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. Those Assemblies represent about five thousand ministers and a still larger number of Christian congregations.

Believing as we do, that it is the will of Christ that his Church on earth should be united, and recognizing the duty of doing all we consistently can to promote Christian charity and fellowship, we deem it right briefly to present the reasons which forbid our participation in the deliberations of the approaching Council.

It is not because we have renounced any article of the catholic faith. We are not heretics. We cordially receive all the doctrines contained in that Symbol which is known as the Apostles' Creed. We regard all doctrinal decisions of the first six ecumenical councils to be consistent with the Word of God, and because of that consistency, we receive them as expressing our faith. We therefore believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the person of Christ as those doctrines are expressed in the symbols adopted by the Council of Nicea AD321, that of the Council of Constantinople AD381 and more fully that of the Council of Chalcedon AD451. We believe that there are three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are the same in substance and equal in power and glory. We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, and so was, and continues to be, both God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever. We believe that our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the prophet who should come into the world, whose teachings we are bound to believe and on whose promises we rely. He is the High Priest whose infinitely meritorious satisfaction to divine justice, and whose ever prevalent intercession, is the sole ground of the sinner's justification and acceptance before God. We acknowledge him to be our Lord not only because we are his creatures but also because we are the purchase of his blood. To his authority we are bound to submit, in his care we confide, and to his service all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted.

We receive all those doctrines concerning sin, grace and predestination, known as Augustinian, which doctrines received the sanction not only of the Council of Carthage and of other provincial Synods, but of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus AD431, and of Zosimus, bishop of Rome.

We therefore cannot be pronounced heretics without involving in the same condemnation the whole ancient church.

Neither are we schismatics. We cordially recognize as members of Christ's visible Church on earth, all those who profess the true religion together with their children. We are not only willing but earnest to hold Christian communion with them, provided they do not require, as conditions of such communion, that we profess doctrines which the Word of God condemns, or that we should do what the Word forbids. If in any case any Church prescribes such unscriptural terms of fellowship, the error and the fault is with that church and not with us.

But although we do not decline your invitation because we are either heretics or schismatics, we are nevertheless debarred from accepting it, because we still hold with ever increasing confidence those principles for which our fathers were excommunicated and pronounced accursed by the Council of Trent, which represented, and still represents, the Church over which you preside.

The most important of those principles are: First, that the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The Council of Trent, however, pronounces Anathema on all who do not receive the teachings of tradition pari pietatis affectu (with equal pious affection) as the Scriptures themselves. This we cannot do without incurring the condemnation which our Lord pronounced on the Pharisees, who made void the Word of God by their traditions (Matt. 15:6).

Secondly, the right of private judgement. When we open the Scriptures, we find that they are addressed to the people. They speak to us. We are commanded to search them (John 5:39), to believe what they teach. We are held personally responsible for our faith. The apostle commands us to pronounce accursed an apostle or an angel from heaven who should teach anything contrary to the divinely authenticated Word of God (Gal. 1:8). He made us the judges, and has placed the rule of judgement into our hands, and holds us responsible for our judgements.

Moreover, we find that the teaching of the Holy Spirit was promised by Christ not to the clergy only, much less to any one order of the clergy exclusively, but to all believers. It is written, 'Ye shall all be taught of God.' The Apostle John says to believers: 'Ye have an unction from the Holy One, and know all things . . . but the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you; and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him' (1 John 2:20,27). This teaching of the Spirit authenticates itself, as this same apostle teaches us, when he says, 'He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself (1 John 5:10). 'I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth' (1 John 2:21). Private judgement, therefore, is not only a right, but a duty, from which no man can absolve himself, or be absolved by others.

Thirdly, we believe in the universal priesthood of all believers, that is, that all believers have through Christ access by one Spirit unto the Father (Eph. 2:18); that we may come with boldness to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need (Heb. 4:16); 'Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having an high priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water' (Heb. 10:19-22). To admit, therefore, the priesthood of the clergy, whose intervention is necessary to secure for us the remission of sin and other benefits of the redemption of Christ, is to renounce the priesthood of our Lord, or its sufficiency to secure reconciliation with God.

Fourthly, we deny the perpetuity of apostleship. As no man can be an apostle without the Spirit of prophecy, so no man can be an apostle without the gifts of an apostle. Those gifts, as we learn from Scripture, were plenary knowledge of the truth derived from Christ by immediate revelation (Gal.s 1:12), and personal infallibility as teachers and rulers. What the seals of apostleship were Paul teaches us, when he says to the Corinthians, 'Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds' (2 Cor. 12:12). As for prelates who claim to be apostles, and who demand the same confidence in their teaching, and the same submission to their authority, as that which is due to the inspired messengers of Christ, without pretending to possess either the gifts or signs of the apostleship, we cannot submit to their claims. This would be rendering to erring men the subjection due to God alone or to his divinely authenticated and infallible messengers.

Much less can we recognize the Bishop of Rome as the vicar of Christ on earth, clothed with the authority over the Church and the world which was exercised by our Lord while here in the flesh. It is plain that no one can be the vicar of Christ who has not the attributes of Christ. To recognize the Bishop of Rome as Christ's vicar is therefore virtually to recognize him as divine.

We must stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free. We cannot forfeit our salvation by putting man in the place of God, giving one of like passions with ourselves the control of our inward and outward life which is due only to him in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead.

Other and equally cogent reasons might be assigned why we cannot with a good conscience be represented in the proposed Council. But as the Council of Trent, whose canons are still in force, pronounces all accursed who hold the principles above enumerated, nothing further is necessary to show that our declining your invitation is a matter of necessity.

Nevertheless, although we cannot return to the fellowship of the Church of Rome, we desire to live in charity with all men. We love all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We regard as Christian brethren all who worship, love and obey him as their God and Saviour, and we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth in saying, 'Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen' (Rev. 1:6).

Signed on behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the US of America

Charles Hodge