Saturday, September 4, 2010

Infant Baptism is Biblical?

The following comes from a pamphlet asking if Infant Baptism is Biblical.  There are many Baptists today who question the practice of infant baptism because they can't find a specific command or example in the Bible.  This pamphlet attempts to answer those who question the biblical doctrine of infant baptism.

Infant Baptism Is It Scriptural? by William Hendriksen

Answer This Question for Yourself on the Basis of Scripture

1. Does the Bible really teach that infants of believers should be baptized?
Answer: "And he that is EIGHT DAYS OLD shall be circumcized among you" (Genesis 17:12).
2. But that text says "circumcized," not "baptized." Hence, that passage fails to prove the point, unless baptism is Christian circumcision. Is it?
Answer: "In whom also ye are circumcized with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead" (Colossians 2:11, 12).
3. Is it true then that God has done away with circumcision, as having no longer any spiritual meaning, and has commanded baptism in its stead?
Answer: "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will profit you nothing" (Galatians 5:12).

"Go ye, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19).
4. So, then, the Bible teaches that since baptism has replaced circumcision, and since children eight days old were circumcized, therefore small children should be baptized. Is there any other passage which clearly implies this?
Answer: "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him" (Acts 2:38, 39).
5. Do you really believe then that Jesus would not forbid little children to be baptized?
Answer: "And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:13, 14; Matthew 19:13-14).
6. But why were the bloody sacraments of circumcision and passover replaced by the unbloody sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper?
Answer: "Christ through his own blood entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:11, 12).
7. But is it not true that some persons who were baptized in their infancy are lost for eternity? Then, why baptize infants?--No, you do not have to answer that one, for on second thought I see that the objection is foolish, for it would hold just as well against adult baptism. Besides, we surely would not banish all wedding rings because some people fail to keep the pledge which is represented by them.

8. But another problem arises in my mind. It is this, What good does infant baptism do the child, seeing that he does not understand what is happening to him?
Answer: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcized among you" (Genesis 17:12).
Oh, I see your line of reasoning now. My objection would hold just as well against circumcision, yet God commanded a little one, eight days old, to be circumcized. And if God commands it, we must do it. But though I must admit that there is not much left of my objection, I still cannot understand what good baptism will do the little one... unless it should be that the parents who present it for baptism will be more apt to keep a solemn promise which they have made in public before the eyes of God and all his people. Do you think that there is something to that?
Answer: "I will pay my vows unto Jehovah, Yea, in the presence of all his people" (Psalm 116:14).
Moreover, if even wicked people are more ready to do a wicked thing because they have solemnly promised to do it, will not God's people be more ready to do a good thing because they have promised to do it?

Herod was a wicked king who had made a wicked promise. Yet we read, "And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her" (Mark 6:26).
9. I can see now that Infant Baptism is good for the child in a twofold way: 
  1. because of the promise which the parents make, namely, to nurture the child in the fear of the Lord; and 
  2. because of the fact that if the child has been baptized as an infant, then when later on he hears about this wonderful, sovereign, love, it becomes a powerful incentive for him to love and trust the Lord in return. He will then say, "How wonderful, that it is exactly INFANT BAPTISM that has shown me that God loved me ere I knew him. Seeing, then, that at baptism, he said to me: "My son [or "my daughter"], give me thy heart" (Proverbs 23:26), I will, by means of making public profession of my faith, and by means of adorning that confession with a godly life, say to him:
Take my life, and let me be
Consecrated, Lord, to thee;

Take my hands and let them move

At the impulse of they love.

Take my love, my God, I pour

At thy feet its treasure store;
Take myself, and I will be
Ever, only, all for thee.
10. But why does God present that wonderful gospel of his love to our eyes by means of the sacraments (baptism, the Lord's Supper) as well as to our ears (in the preaching of the Word)? Does that twofold presentation make the gospel more effective?
Answer: "I had heard of thee by the hearing of the ear; but now mine eye seeth thee: wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes" (Job 42:5).
11. Is it true that the water of baptism points to the cleansing blood and Spirit of Christ?
Answer: "In that day there shall be a fountain opened... for sin and for uncleanness" (Zechariah 13:1).

"The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).

"Except one be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5).
12. I am now strongly inclined to believe in Infant Baptism, I can see that it is a wonderful sign and seal of God's love, and that once rightly understood by the child, it will be able to exert a might influence for good upon his spiritual life in its development. But, if you don't mind, I want to know how to answer three additional objections that are sometimes advanced against this doctrine. The first is this: Does not Mark 16:16 indicate that a person should first believe before he can be baptized?
Answer: See for yourself by reading the text in its own context. It means, of course, that those to whom the gospel is preached (verse 15) must first confess their faith before they can be baptized. Hence, before an adult is baptized he must first confess his faith. The passage, therefore, has nothing whatever to do with infant baptism.
13. Yes, I can see that now clearly. The next objection I want to be able to answer is this one: some people say that infants cannot be admitted to baptism because nowhere do we read in so many words (literally), "Go and baptize infants."
Answer: And where do you read in so many words (literally), "Women can be admitted to the Lord's Supper"? (Remember that when Christ instituted this sacrament men only were present.) Where do we read in so many words, "Go to church on Sunday instead of on Saturday"? You say, "But these are safe and warranted inferences." Exactly, so is Infant Baptism, as you have seen. Furthermore, shouldn't we expect a command, not to baptize infants, if the Lord wanted the New Testament Church to have a different attitude and practice than was present in the Old Testament?
14. The final objection which people sometimes advance is this: Infant Baptism is a late invention. The early church did not know anything about it.
Answer: One of the greatest authorities on Church History, Philip Schaff, has this to say about that objection:
"Among the fathers... there is not a single voice against the lawfulness and the apostolic origin of infant baptism."

Friday, September 3, 2010

The Forming of the PCA: Part 11

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.
Read Part 6.
Read Part 7.
Read Part 8.
Read Part 9.
Read Part 10.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination. Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 11 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.  

December 4, 1973 
Opening Worship Message of the Newly Formed "The National Presbyterian Church"
(Later Changed to "The Presbyterian Church in America")
By W. Jack Williamson

On this historic occasion, we gather at the call of Almighty God. We gather in the providence of our Father who art in heaven. We gather to worship and honor our Creator. Our chief end is "to glorify Him and to enjoy Him forever."

We gather to continue a True branch of the Church and the sole law giver in Zion. We remember His promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Let us immediately declare the purpose of this Church, our portion of which today becomes a formal ecclesiastical entity. This Church exists merely for the sake of God. Its purpose cannot be human or humanistic as to prepare a believer for heaven. Its purpose does not like in us, but in God, and in the glory of His name. The origin of this Church is in God, its form of manifestation is from God; and from beginning to end, its purpose is and shall be to magnify God's glory.

Let us further declare its nature. This Church is a spiritual organism, including heaven and earth, but having at present its center and the starting point for its action, not upon earth, but in heaven. We are in this world but not of this world. We declare our devotion to the Church as a spiritual institution knowing that the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ is not of this world. Not until His second coming shall this organism manifest itself as the center of the cosmos. Now, here on earth, it is only as it were its silhouette that can be dimly discerned. In the future, this new Jerusalem shall descend from God, out of heaven, but at present it withdraws its beams from our sight in the mysteries of the invisible. And therefore the true sanctuary is now above. On high are both the Altar of Atonement, and the incense Altar of Prayer; and on high is Christ, as the only priest who, according to the ordinance of Melchizedek, ministers at the Altar, in the sanctuary, before God. We confess that Christ in human form, in our flesh, has entered into the invisible, and that with Him, around Him, and in Him, our Head, is the real Church, the real and essential sanctuary of our salvation.

But who are we who gather to form and continue on the earth a visible branch of the true invisible Church? We have been chosen, regenerated and called by God for this purpose. We are convinced and convicted of our calling and election by these words of the Apostle Paul:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,  to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: that we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ." (Ephesians 1:3-12)
We are but a group of sinners saved by grace and sent out to be ambassadors for our Savior Jesus Christ on this earth. We are a group of confessors who shall live in an ecclesiastical union of obedience to the ordinances of Christ Himself. This is no mystical, spiritual order gifted with mystical powers to operate with a magical influence on men. We are only regenerated and confessing individuals, who in accordance with scriptural command, are forming a society and therein shall endeavor to live in subordination to Christ our King. We are called to be a visible manifestation of the true Church on this earth. The Church of Jesus Christ is not a building, not an institution, not a spiritual order; but it is a group of living stones built on Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. We are then a group of regenerated and confessing individuals who have been united, not as we have seen fit, but according to the ordinances of Christ. We are a priesthood of believers. Do not misunderstand me. I do not say: This Church consists of a number of pious people united in groups for religious purposes. It is true that the real, heavenly, invisible church must and will manifest itself in the earthly church. But the real essential church is and remains the body of Christ which is composed of people who have been regenerated - "born again." Merely for pious, sincere people to get together in groups is not sufficient to form a true Church of Jesus Christ on earth. There you have a religious society but not a Christian Church. This is the great contradiction and danger of our generation in America. There are many religious societies in our land but far fewer real Christian churches. And Satan is using these religious societies to give a false sense of eternal security to their members. By them, many people are being misled into believing that to be "religious" is to be "Christian". People are being taught that to be "religious" and to be "Christian" are synonymous terms. We know this is tragic error. (sic) This is not to say that all these religious societies are bad. On the contrary most of them are good. For the most part they are composed of sincere people who are in varying degrees committed to a cause. Some are totally dedicated and give their lives to such causes. They exhibit zeal and courage in support of their cause. They are sincerely convinced that they are right. They use "Christian" terminology in support of their cause. They are philanthropic and altruistic. The results of their efforts often bring good to many people. But their causes are always humanistic and secularistic. Whatever movement is the vogue of the day becomes the cause of the year for these religious societies. Many Americans become members of these religious societies as a fashionable facet of the good life. They call themselves "Christians". In this they may be absolutely sincere but are certainly wrong. As proof that religious piety, sincerity, and zeal do not make a person a "Christian", we recall the autobiographical account of the life of the Apostle Paul. As Saul of Tarsus, he was deeply and sincerely religious. He was a zealous leader in the leading religious society of his day. but he tells us the he was certainly wrong. He did not become a "Christian" until the Living Lord Jesus encountered him in the road to Damascus. He was there "regenerated - born again"; and thereafter the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ become his only cause. Paul testified to his mission before King Agrippa, as Dr. Luke recorded, in Acts 26:15-18 as follows:
"And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest. But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me."
Paul became a "Christian" through the regenerative power of a personal encounter with Jesus Christ; and thereafter he was called and sent forth as an ambassador of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He went about the then known world and preached this gospel and formed many true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ on this earth. This true church on earth then consists only of those who have been incorporated into Christ, who bow before Him, who live in His word, and who obey His ordinances. We do not claim to be perfect. Nor shall this Church be perfect. But we do assert that we have been chosen by His grace through faith to know Jesus the Christ as Savior; that we have been regenerated by the power of the Holy Spirit; that we have been called to proclaim His Word on this earth, to administer His sacraments to believers, and to exercise discipline in the body to preserve the purity of His Truth. As we stand before the face of Almighty God and know our hearts and minds, this is the necessity that is laid upon us. It is not that we would. It is that we must. Today we raise a fresh, clear banner of the truth of our Living Lord Jesus Christ before this watching world. It shall stand out distinctive in contrast to many false religious societies which bear His Name. It shall not be conformed to this world. It shall be a standard to which the "wise and the just may repair". Following in true apostolic tradition, we are but continuing a true branch of the Church of Jesus Christ on this earth. God being our helper, we can do no other.

But to understand this necessity which we feel God has laid upon us, one must understand the principle that has motivated us. As an apologetic, we would lay this principle before the world. It is the practice of the principle of the purity of the visible church. In order that we might practice this principle, it has been necessary that we leave the visible church with which we have been associated. We have separated; but the principle is not separation. Separation is a negative idea. But our principle is a positive concept. Separation is merely the price we have had to pay for the principle is a positive concept. Separation is merely the price we have had to pay for the principle. It has been a terrible price. Many have had to "let goods and kindred go". This separation has forced division among families, friends, and local congregations. It has been heartrending and with many tears. Separation from foes is not easy; but separation from fellow Christian friends is traumatic. It was only after much prayer and with great sorrow and mourning that we concluded that to practice the principle of purity in the visible church, we had to pay the price of separation. Before we come to the place where we had to make this horrible decision to separate from our mother church, we had to settle a prior issue. That issue was that the church we loved as an organization is not first; Christ is first. Therefore, once Christ is no longer King and Lord in a church, then that church cannot have our loyalty. Long ago faithful men saw our former church losing her first love. Liberalism and modernism were beginning to make significant inroads in the Presbyterian Church in the United States by the mid-1940's. We cannot possibly give credit to all who in the past three decades have fought so valiantly to return that beloved Church to her true mission. Such Christian soldiers are legion. But we must mention some of the major groups which have sought to defend the faith once delivered to the saints. Over 25 years ago a group of men from the Presbyterian Journal met at the Biltmore Hotel in Atlanta, Georgia. We have recently read in the minutes of that body a list of the dangers they saw then before the Church. It was with prophetic insight that they wrote; fore every danger they listed, save one, is now an accomplished fact in the Presbyterian Church in the United States. Through these years the Presbyterian Journal has been the focal point of leadership for those who wished to preserve the historic witness of the Reformed Faith in the Presbyterian Church in the United States. We frankly admit today that we are a product of their original initiative. Most of us are novices in the battle compared to those veteran defenders of the faith. We honor and respect these men; and we give thanks to Almighty God for their gallant faithfulness. They have indeed led us to this place and this hour. Praise God for each of them.

Then in the early 1960's, one man was called by God to begin in faith an independent evangelistic organization. Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship was born. These men have fearlessly preached the whole counsel of God as revealed in His Word. Many souls have been saved; and many quickened and nurtured in the faith. Praise God for each of them.

Then in 1964, a group of laymen formed Concerned Presbyterians. This group was dedicated to return our beloved Church to its primary mission of winning souls to Jesus Christ and nurturing them in the faith. They sought to inform the church of the trends toward liquidation of her historic witness; and they sought to arrest such trends through constitutional process in the courts of the Church. Again God raised up one man to principally provide the leadership for this group.  He enlisted a number of full time field men who went over the length and breadth of the Church warning individuals and groups of these trends. Many of these soldiers of the cross are here today; but some have remained behind to conduct a rear guard action for the many uninformed sheep yet languishing in uncertainty or unconcern. The contribution of this group is incalculable. Praise God for each of them.

Then in the late 1960s, over 600 ministers formed Presbyterian Churchmen United. They subscribed to a document they entitled "Declaration of Commitment" and published the same in full page advertisements in the leading newspapers in the South. They fearlessly took a stand for the faith. Many have suffered ecclesiastical persecution. The course any church takes is predominately set by her ordained ministry. In spite of the human threat of ecclesiastical oblivion, most of these faithful servants have stood firm out front in the vanguard. They too have led us to this place and this hour. Praise God for each of them.

Finally, let us never forget those faithful who labored in lonely places - many times in almost total isolation. Let us pay tribute to those great prayer warriors in the homes across this land. Those women who prayed while we fought, who spent many lonely nights while we traveled, who gave up the best years of the lives of their men, who kept informed so that they could educate the men, who built fires under the session through their ruling elder husbands, and who deserve as much credit for this hour as any man here. Yes -- "they also serve, who only stand and wait." Praise God for each of them.

For at least three decades, these and many more have attempted to stop the trends in the Presbyterian Church in the United States toward humanism, secularism, and syncretism. But their efforts failed. Our beloved former Church has continued the fetish for ecumenism so that the form of unity regardless of the faith has become its goal. She is already linked in constitutional principle with the UPCUSA through union presbyteries; and thus she has given approval to the doctrinal position of her sister body as expressed in the Confession of 1967. But her greatest deviation from her historic witness has been in her attitude toward the Scriptures. The true Church of Jesus Christ belongs to those who by the grace of God are faithful to the Scriptures. The higher critical theories of Scripture and the neo-orthodox view of Scripture have become the dominate and official position of the PCUS today. To them, the Bible is not the Word of God written - it merely contains the Word of God. To them, it is not absolute objective truth. For them, truth is subjective to the discovery of the mind of man. I believe it correct to assert that there is not one single professor in the four PCUS seminaries who holds to the doctrine of Scripture of our founding fathers. Men are consistently being ordained in PCUS Presbyteries who deny cardinal doctrines of Scripture. Universalism is being openly defended in the courts of the PCUS. As a result ethics and morality are determined by permissive situationalism. In his recent book "How Is The God Become Dim", Dr. Morton H. Smith has cataloged in over 200 pages this decline in the PCUS as reflected in its Assembly actions. It has been my observation that wherever and whenever the inspiration and authority of the Word Inscripturated is attacked, the person and work of the Word Incarnated is demeaned. The work of Jesus Christ in the world becomes equated with all the other noble causes laid before society. The zeal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is lost and the temper of the times dictates the religious cause for the day. It appears to me that the PCUS is rapidly becoming such a religious society with tremendous potential for good community service but with only an incidental relationship to salvation of souls through faith in Jesus Christ.

But you ask, why did you not practice the principle of the purity of the PCUS by disciplining those who deviated from the proper position in regard to the teaching of Scripture and tot he creeds? The answer is that the denomination is now so much in the hands o the liberals that it is officially and formally no longer possible to have a discipline trial, ever - even in theory! As we have pointed above, truth to the liberal is subjective and relative. Hence we have no standard o f objective truth on which to make a judgment. Since these men no longer believe in truth, any concept of discipline in regard to doctrine has been unthinkable. Instead of discipline, there has been substituted the policy of pluralism. It is the great umbrella principle of covering almost everybody regardless of belief. It is argued that the church is big enough to accommodate varying points of view. They say that in love we will tolerate each other. It is a live and let live philosophy. Each position has to make some compromise and concession to exist with the other. It is a tendency toward a growing latitudinarianism. This always leads to a low view of Scripture. And it gives to the watching world a multi-shaded view of Christianity. These may still talk about truth but tend less and less to practice truth. They practice tolerance, concession, compromise and accommodation. The world gets no clear and distinctive view of Jesus Christ in His Church. It is to restore this clear, distinctive, historic witness to Jesus Christ that we have felt constrained to separate from the PCUS.

In a word, my reasoning is that my vows of ordination as a Ruling Elder, as I understand them, required me to separate from my beloved church. It is with genuine sadness, many tears, and much soul-searching that I cam to thus see my duty before my God. On ordination, I promised to study the peace, unity, and purity of teh Church. For a decade now I have diligently sought to fulfill this vow at various levels in the Church. I reluctantly concluded that I:
(a) Could find little peace in a structure that in its official acts and doings is constantly and consistently contradicting my faith.
(b) Could find little unity in a structure that advocates a pluralism and diversity that tolerates unbelief - for me "two cannot walk together less they be agreed."
(c) Could find little edification in a structure that continues to embarrass me in its official acts and doings and forces me to spend most of my time in negative reaction and apology.
(d) Could find little hope for purity in a structure that permits unbelief to run rampant and has lost its will and ability to discipline.
Thus as I saw my duty, it is not that I wished to go but that I must. Others may see their duty differently. We must respect their views as "God alone is Lord of the conscience"; and we ask them to respect ours. We have thus made our decision. We settled the prior issue - Christ not Church is first. We tried to return the church to its true mission. we could not. After years of much intensive effort, it became obvious to us that humanly speaking it would be impossible to recapture our church. Instead of being able to stop these trends, they seemed to get worse as the liberals intensified their efforts in reaction to our opposition. Suffice it to say that several years ago it became the consensus of our leaders that the historic witness of our beloved Church was gradually being liquidated; and for those who felt a duty to preserve it, division became the only answer. From that point in time on the issue of division has been settled; and the only issue has been timing and procedure. It was then we sought a method of peaceful realignment hoping that men of good will would prevail. Not the only but the best method for such peaceful realignment seemed to be an acceptable escape clause in the plan of union with the UPCUSA. Our liberal friends promised this method; and we accepted their promises in good faith. But in February this year, they succeeded in closing this door by discarding the draft of the Plan of Union which they had promised would be presented to the 1973 General Assemblies for vote; and thus they delayed presentation of any plan indefinitely. Thus this method for constitutional division became no longer a viable possibility for the foreseeable future. The abandonment of this method by the liberals was an act of pure ecclesiastical expediency. They broke faith with us and forced us to move to an alternative procedure. Once the battle for doctrinal purity was lost, we were forced to decide what price we were willing to pay to practice the principle of purity in the visible church. We found it necessary to leave the visible organization with which we had been associated to preserve the principle. Separation became the price we had to pay to maintain the principle. But note well: We did so with tears - not with drums playing and flags flying. We claim empathy with the Rev. Dr. Thornwell who addressed the first General Assembly of our separated forefathers in 1861 with these matchless words:
"We should be sorry to be regarded by our brethren in any part of the world as guilty of schism. We are not conscious of any purpose to rend the body of Christ. On the contrary, our aim has been to promote unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace. If we know our own hearts, and can form any just estimate of the motives which have governed us, we have been prompted by a sincere desire to promote the glory of God, and the efficiency, energy, harmony and zeal of His visible kingdom in the earth. We have separated from our brethren as Abraham from Lot, because we are persuaded that the interest of true religion will be more effectually subserved by two independent churches...
For the sake of peace, therefore, for Christian charity, for honor of the Church, and for the glory of God, we have been constrained, as much as in us lies, to remove all occasion of offense. We have quietly separated, and we are grateful to God that, while leaving for the sake of peace, we leave it with the humble consciousness that we ourselves have never given occasion to break the peace."
Now having declared our purpose and the nature of this church, and having explained who we believe we are and the principle which has motivated us, we would again state the commitment which binds us. We have committed ourselves to the rebirth and continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture, the Reformed Faith and committed to the spiritual mission of the Church as Christ commanded in the Great Commission. For us in the Bible is both necessary and sufficient. Apart from Scripture man is hopelessly lost. Created in the image of God, man has fallen and darkness has engulfed him. Man in sin is not only spiritually ill, he is spiritually dead. He is not only confused in his pilgrimage through this world; he is lost. He is like a person in a forest, without a map, compass or guide and no idea which way to go. To be sure, there is revelation in creation. God continues to speak to all men in spite of their sin, but the consequences of sin are such that men cannot hear. Other sounds distract them and drown out the call of God. They hear His call but indistinctly. The calls of the world and self are too strong. Without some leading, they will never find their way to the Father's house. That is why salvation from God is necessary. Apart from it, the Apostle Paul declares in shocking language that men are "separated from Christ, alienated from the common wealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world" (Ephesians 2:12).Thus we declare the necessity of Regeneration for real existence and of Revelation for clear consciousness. Thus we see the Necessitas Sola Scripture, i.e. of the need of scriptural revelation. To abandon or depreciate Scripture is tantamount to abandonment or depreciation of Christianity itself. In paradise in the Garden of Eden before the fall there was no Bible; and there will be no Bible in the future Paradise of glory. But in our present condition our immediate communion with God is lost. When the sun shines in your house, bright and clear, you turn off the electric light, but when the sun sets, this artificial light is kindled in every dwelling. So it is in our religion. When there is no mist to hide the majesty of the divine light from our eyes, what need is there for a lamp unto our feet or a light upon our pathway? But when history, experience and consciousness all unite in stating the fact that the pure light of Heaven has disappeared, and that we are groping in the dark, then a different, or if you will allow the analogy, an artificial light must be kindled for us in His Holy Word. God regenerates us - that is to say, He rekindles in our heart the lamp sin has blown out. The necessary consequence of this regeneration is an irreconcilable conflict between the inner world of our heart and the world outside. Now, in the Bible, God reveals, to the regenerate, a world of thought, a world of energies, a world of full and beautiful life, which stands in direct opposition to this ordinary world, but proves to agree in a wonderful way with the new life that has sprung up in our heart. It is our only infallible rule of faith and practice, in the accepted and ordinary meaning of these terms. We believe that the Holy Scriptures fully contain the will and word of God and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation and sanctification are taught therein. We shall not consider any other writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those of divine Scripture. Nor shall we consider custom, traditions, councils or decrees as of equal value with the truth of God as found in the Scripture, since that truth is above all. The Word of God written is without error and our final authority. We are committed to a church loyal to Scripture. We are committed to a church loyal to the Reformed Faith - Ecclesia Reformata. By this we mean a church that has been renewed according to the Word of God. We shall attempt to recover Christianity in its original purity and to remove from it the beliefs and practices that have become attached to it in our day and generation without foundation in the Word of God. We acknowledge that this can only be accomplished by the Spirit of God. So we pray that His Holy Spirit shall so fully indwell us that this faith is clearly and comprehensively systematized in the subordinate standards which are the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. We make no apology that this church will be thoroughly Calvinistic in doctrine and intensely Presbyterian in form of government. In the tradition of our forebears, we affirm with Rev. Dr. Thornwell that
"the ends which we propose to accomplish as a church are the same as those which are proposed by every other church - to proclaim God's truth as a witness to the nations; to gather His elect from the four corners of the earth, and through the Word, ministers and ordinances, to train them for eternal life."
We have heard the voice of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ when He commissioned us for the primary mission of His Church, namely:
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:19-20)
Confident of the promise of His presence, we shall endeavor to strive for a new obedience to this great commission.

Having thus declared ourselves and our commitment, we would address specific groups of people with whom we shall have contact in our mission. For the purpose of illustration, we will liken our approach to five concentric circles. Each group shall be a different circle. From outside to inside, the circle of groups are:
  1. All people of the world.
  2. All the churches of Jesus Christ through the earth.
  3. The Reformed Family of churches of Jesus Christ.
  4. The Presbyterian Church in the United States.
  5. Our Brethren in this Church.
For all the people of the world, we have this good news:
"God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)
God loves you. It is not his desire that any of you should perish. He sent Jesus Christ His Son to this earth that you might be reconciled to God through faith in His Son. Jesus gave his life on the cross as an atonement for sin. This sacrifice was sufficient for all of you. God calls you to repent and believe this gospel. There is no other way to heaven. No man can come God the Father except through God the Son. The alternative is eternal damnation in hell separated from God. We shall and do proclaim God's truth to you regardless of your race, color, creed or national origin. Repent and believe the gospel.

To all the churches of Jesus Christ throughout the earth, we send greetings in the ties of Christian brotherhood and common mission. We desire to cultivate peace and charity with our fellow Christians throughout the world. We believe and profess one holy catholic and apostolic church. Our Westminster Confession beautifully sets forth this heavenly all-embracing nature of the church, when it says:
"The Catholic or Universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect that have been , are or shall be, gathered into one, under Christ the Head, thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him the filleth all in all."
Thus the church is Catholic or Universal because there is only one church; and it is Apostolic because it has direct continuity with the church of the first century. It is indeed built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets with Jesus Christ himself its chief cornerstone. it is the view held by some zealous Christians that theirs is the only true church, or that their members are superior to Christians in other churches. We do not hold this narrow concept. We would distinguish between mere religious societies that often bear the name "Christian" and the true churches of Jesus Christ on the earth. But we declare that the visible unity of the true body of Christ, though obscured , is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians; but all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity are to be recognized as true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ on this earth. In His matchless name we greet you as brothers in Christ.

To the Reformed Family of Churches of Jesus Christ, we extend special greetings. We share with you the sharp accent on Jesus Christ as the heart of our tradition and the foundation of our ecclesiology. We share the view that the church is not only an organism, a fellowship of believers united to Christ, but it is also an institution in society. Like other social institutions it has certain distinguishing characteristics. These have been called "marks". Where these were in evidence the church was called a "true church" and where they were not it was called a "false church" or a "sect". We know you agree that these "marks" are:
  1. that the church must preach the gospel,
  2. that the church must properly administer the sacraments as instituted by Christ, and 
  3. that the church must exercise discipline in order to preserve the honor of Jesus Christ, the head of the church.
Since you agree with us on the major points of doctrine and polity, we seek great possibilities for closer ties in the future. We seek the "oneness" of which Jesus spoke in John Chapter 17. We are convinced that there must be a unity of faith before a unity of form. We appreciate the assistance and encouragement you have already given us. We look forward to a closer relationship with you. We see in our mutual relationship the seeds of true ecumenicity. May God hasten the day.

To the Presbyterian Church in the United States, we acknowledged our continued love and concern for you. You are our spiritual mother, in your arms we were nurtured, under your ordinances we were baptized, in your courts we were ordained to serve our Lord and King, and to your visible organization we thought we had committed our lives. We could sever these ties only with deepest regret. We have done that which we think our duty demanded. We have done that which we think the honor of Jesus Christ required. We sincerely hope that our going may in some way recall you to that historic witness which we cherish as our common heritage. It is our prayer that God will use these days for self-examination and reform. Any such separation is traumatic; but in word and deed we have attempted to show Christian charity for the sake of peace, for the honor of the Church, and for the glory of God. Without question, the most painful aspect of this separation has been to leave the communion with many fellow believers with whom we have stood shoulder to should in the ecclesiastical battles of the last three decades. We believe we have moved as Christian statesmen with honor. We know you agree with us in principle but disagree as to procedure. We respect your right to your judgment before God. We would prefer that you were with us today. We feel that it is here that you belong. Your absence makes us feel incomplete. We covet your continued fellowship in all areas possible. There are so many times and places where we can continue our warm fellowship and friendship - both public and private; and for our part we shall continue to expedite and cultivate these opportunities. We now extend to you our hands of love and good will and our open invitation and plea to join us soon. May God hasten that day.

To our Brethren in this Church, we rejoice with you in praise and thanksgiving to Almighty God for bring us to this hour. Surely His providence has taught us that we are in His will, under His control, and led by His Spirit. I counsel you that our attitude toward others is most important. Regardless of the attitudes or actions of others, we will remember that we represent the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the King and Head of the Church. As his ambassadors to the watching world, we must let this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus. Let men everywhere notice in us the three effects to nearness to Jesus - humility, happiness and holiness. History teaches us that in prior church divisions, those who come out tend to become hard. They tend to become absolutists even in the lesser points of doctrine. Francis Schaeffer points out that
"One must realize that there is a great difference between believing in absolutes and having an absolutist mentality about everything."
True humility is the answer to this problem - for it is caused by thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. Our Lord demonstrated the proper approach when he washed the disciples' feet on the night he was betrayed. Now I'm not advocating "foot-washing". But I am suggesting that we need the Holy Spirit to help us discern the difference between those things that are revealed in Scripture and those things that are the product of our human pride and opinion. In the former, we must not compromise; but in the latter, we must learn true humility to be in subjection to our brethren in the Lord. We must put away our former mentality of being suspicious of our fellow churchmen; and we must trust and believe our brothers until and unless they prove otherwise. Our Lord came to minister; and so must we. The grace of humility should abound in us. Also happiness should pervade our existence. We should rejoice and be exceedingly glad. God has given to this select group an opportunity to witness to His Glory the likeness of which men have not had in many generations. What a privilege it is to have been born for such a time as this. We have the answer to life and to death - Christ is the answer. He came to give us the truly abundant life. Yes, there shall be trials and tribulations. But we should be of good cheer for He has overcome the world. We bear the name of "Christian." But we must realize that every moment of every day, we stand in the presence of God with the latin expression Coram Deo. We have a living encounter with our Creator. Before Ahab and Jezebel, the lone prophet Elijah exclaimed "As the Lord, the God of Israel lives before whom I stand." As individuals this concept that our whole existence is lived before the Lord forms the foundation for our holiness. Remember that perhaps of Christ the world's only view shall be what they see of Him in you.

Then, brethren, in conclusion we must under gird this Church with a great outgoing of prayer. We know it is far easier to fight than it is to pray. But our battle is "not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rules of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Only fervent prayer will prevail.

We must work. Remember that the true war-cry of the church is Gideon's watch word - "The Sword of the Lord, and of Gideon." God must do it; but we are not to be idle. If we only cry "the Sword of the Lord," we shall be guilty of an idle presumption; and if we should cry "the Sword of Gideon" alone, we shall manifest an idle reliance on an arm of flesh. We must blend the two. We can do nothing ourselves, but we can do everything by the help of our God.

We must be confident of His promise. To the chosen children of Israel, the prophet Isaiah wrote the words of God that I believe apply to us, namely:
"You worry at being so small and few, but Abraham was only one when I called him. But I blessed him and he became a great nation" (Isaiah 51:2)
What a promise! What a God!
"And now we command you to this God and the word of His grace. We devoutly pray that the whole Catholic Church may be afresh baptized with the Holy Ghost, and that she may be speedily stirred to give the Lord no rest until He establish and make Jerusalem a praise in the earth." "For of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all things: To whom be glory forever. Amen" (Romans 11:36)

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Accountability, Christian Friendships, and Holiness that Transcends Behavior

Perhaps fueled by the Sonship movement that was prevalent in the PCA in the 80's and 90's, for a long time it was stressed that Christian men needed accountable friendships --another man to whom they could confess anything, and who would hold them accountable for doing the right thing.

Let me state from the first that I think this is a good thing, albeit a difficult one. Men seem to have difficulty forming fast and intimate friendships, particularly in this age when people move about so much. My closest friends are men I rarely see face to face. I don't like this one bit, but it is the way it is.

Yet, as with everything else, we need to make sure we don't confuse a good thing with being the only thing. A man may successfully avoid the pitfalls of lust and greed and the destruction to which they might lead, may treat his wife and children self-sacrificingly well, and may be a generous tither and a devoted churchman and have regular times of study and prayer and still fall far short of godly manhood.

Far too often we have confused holiness with mere behavior: doing and not doing. Yet, Scripture is filled with warnings about doing without being. What do I mean? The fruits of the spirit are not concrete "doing" things --they can't be defined by an accountability list. How are you doing at the love thing? What about the kindness thing? These are matters of the heart. 1 Cor 13 says we can even give our body to be burned (doing in the extreme) and have it all be in vain because of lovelessness (a being thing).

The Christian life is not an easy thing, and accountability is certainly a useful tool towards holiness. It is not, however, the magic pill. No created thing is. This ought to cause us to rely more upon existential connection with the Holy Spirit, who alone can work his true fruits in our lives.

The Ten Marks of a Flesh-Pleaser by Richard Baxter

The signs of a flesh-pleaser or sensualist are these:

1. When a man in his desire to please his appetite, does not do it with a view to a higher end, that is to say to the preparing himself for the service of God; but does it only for the delight itself. (Of course no one does every action consciously with a view to the service of God. Nevertheless, the general manner or habit of a life spent in the service of God is absent for the flesh-pleaser.)

2. When he looks more eagerly and industriously after the prosperity of his body than of his soul.

3. When he will not refrain from his pleasures, when God forbids them, or when they hurt his soul, or when the necessities of his soul call him away from them. But he must have his delight whatever it costs him, and is so set upon it, that he cannot deny it to himself.

4. When the pleasures of his flesh exceed his delights in God, and his holy word and ways, and the expectations of endless pleasure. And this not only in the passion, but in the estimation, choice, and action. When he had rather be at a play, or feast, or other entertainment, or getting good bargains or profits in the world, than to live in the life of faith and love, which would be a holy and heavenly way of living.

5. When men set their minds to scheme and study to make provision for the pleasures of the flesh; and this is first and sweetest in their thoughts.

6. When they had rather talk, or hear, or read of fleshly pleasures, than of spiritual and heavenly delights.

7. When they love the company of merry sensualists, better than the communion of saints, in which they may be exercised in the praises of their Maker.

8. When they consider that the best place to live and work is where they have the pleasure of the flesh. They would rather be where they have things easy, and lack nothing for the body, rather than where they have far better help and provision for the soul, though the flesh be pinched for it.

9. When he will be more eager to spend money to please his flesh than to please God.

10. When he will believe or like no doctrine but "easy-believism," and hate mortification as too strict "legalism." By these, and similar signs, sensuality may easily be known; indeed, by the main bent of the life.

Friday, August 20, 2010

The Forming of the PCA: Part 10

Read Part 1.
Read Part 2.
Read Part 3.
Read Part 4.
Read Part 5.
Read Part 6.
Read Part 7.
Read Part 8.
Read Part 9.

There are many questions circulating out there by some elders of the PCA concerning the future of our denomination. Since this is a Pastoral blog, I believe it a good thing to look back at some of the writings of the fathers of our denomination as they were nearing the end of the PCUS and considering themselves what was to become of their own denomination, which in the end led to the formation of the PCA.  I believe we can learn from them, and so the following is Part 10 of this little series looking back to 'the fathers of the PCA.'  Please take time to read the entirety though it is long for a blog.  Trust me this is crucial.

May 18, 1973
A Message Delivered to the Convocation of Sessions (Atlanta, Georgia)
By W. Jack Williamson Message
"Law and Procedure Or How and Why in 1973"

The Law is the law of love; and the Procedure is to the rescue of the perishing. As our Lord Jesus walked the streets of Jerusalem on his way to Golgotha to the greatest demonstration of that law and to enable that procedure. He turned to those following and said: 
"For if they do these things in a green tree, what shall be done in the dry." (Luke 23:31)
When God thus saw Jesus in the sinner's place, He did not spare Him; and where He finds the unregenerate without Christ, He will not spare them. Yet it is not His will that any should perish. We are called to declare this law of love and to proceed o rescue those perishing: "for whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." (Rom. 10:13)

This law and this Procedure is foolishness to an unbelieving world; but it is the commission and the compulsion of these who have been truly reborn into the true church of our Lord Jesus Christ. Here is the nature and mission of that church.

Now, over 25 years ago a group of men from The Presbyterian Journal met at the Biltmore Hotel here in Atlanta. They came to preserve a Presbyterian Church in America true to that nature and that mission. We gather again in Atlanta today, a product of their original initiative. Most of us on this program are novices in this battle compared to those veteran defenders of the faith. We were recruited by them, trained by them, directed by them, and sent out to the battlefront by them. Although they may not all agree with us now as to the best course for the immediate future, we all are committed to these same basic principles as to the nature and mission of the Church. We honor and respect these men; and we give thanks to Almighty God for their gallant faithfulness. They have led us to this place and this hour. Praise God for each of them.

As this Convocation of Sessions comes to consider the possible procedure of forming a new ecclesiastical entity in 1973, the question is often and properly asked - "Why 1973?" Or as one has put it - "If I could work in the PCUS in 1972, why must I not continue to do so in 1973, when there is no development radically changing the picture of things?" Why '73, instead of '70, '72, '74 or '80? Let us address ourselves to this issue of procedure. In a word, my reasoning is that my vows of ordination as a Ruling Elder, as I understand them, require me to separate from my beloved church. It is with genuine sadness, many tears, and much soul-searching that I have come to thus see my duty before my God. Our ordination, I promised to study the peace, unity, edification and purity of the Church. For a decade now I have diligently sought to fulfill this vow at various levels in our Church. I have reluctantly concluded that I 
  1. Can find little peace in a structure that in its official acts and doings is constantly and consistently contradicting my faith.
  2. Can find little unity in a structure that advocates a pluralism and diversity that tolerates unbelief - for me "two cannot walk together less they be agreed."
  3. Can find little edification in a structure that continues to embarrass me in its official acts and doings and forces me to spend most of my time in negative reaction and apology.
  4. Can find little hope for purity in a structure that permits unbelief to run rampant and has lost its will and ability to discipline.
Thus as I see my duty, it is not that I wish to go but that I must. Others may see their duty differently. We must respect their views as "God alone is Lord of the conscience" and we ask them to respect ours. But, why 1973?

I believe I can best answer this question by summarizing the history of this movement in the past decade. It was at this point in time that some of us were recruited from our comfortable positions in our local churches to enter the battle on a broader scale in Presbytery, Synod and General Assembly. At this time, these aforesaid gallant warriors had won a great victory in the Union fight of the mid-50's. But they had been unable to stem the tide of modernism, liberalism, and radical ecumenism in our Church. The situation continued to get worse rather than better: and they realized it. The Church had already violated its faith and order on several constitutional issues; but they hoped we could return the Church to her former faith and order through a concerted effort by Ruling and Teaching Elders. This we undertook to do; but after about 5 years of much intensive effort, it became obvious to us that humanly speaking it would be impossible to recapture our church. Instead of being able to stop the trends, they seemed to get worse as the liberals intensified their efforts in reaction to our opposition. During this period many more serious constitutional violations of our faith and order were officially adopted and practiced by our Church. I won't list them as Dr. Morton Smith has already pointed to many of them. Suffice it to say that it became clear that the historic witness of our beloved Church was gradually being liquidated; and for those who felt a duty to preserve i , division became the only answer. From that point on the issue of division has been settled; and the only issue was timing and procedure.  It was then we sought a method of peaceful realignment hoping that men of good will would prevail. Not the only but the best method for such peaceful realignment seemed to be an acceptable escape clause in the Plan for Union with the UPCUSA. Our liberal friends promised us this method; and we accepted their promises in good faith. We chose and recommended this method as the best constitutional procedure for such a division. We warned that unreasonable delays would be taken as a breach of good faith. We made preparation for the division we humanly saw as inevitable. But, in February, 1973, our liberal opposition in the PCUS succeeded in closing this door for peaceful realignment by discarding the Plan of Union and delaying its presentation for vote indefinitely. Even though strenuously requested by me as the conservative representative thereon, this Union Committee refused to commit itself to any "escape" clause. Thus this best method for constitutional division became no longer a viable possibility in the foreseeable future. The abandonment of this method by the liberals was an act of pure ecclesiastical political expediency. They broke faith with us in 1973 and have forced us to move to an alternative procedure. One of their frank leaders said to me in Dallas -- "We will force you conservatives to do what you must and after you have done it we will regroup and reevaluate our position; and in the meantime we will push for more union Presbyteries and more de facto union at the administrative level of the Boards and Agencies; and after you have gone we will redraw the Presbytery lines so that we won't have any trouble passing any plan we want. It may take 10 years but we can wait."

This is what has happened; and this is why 1973. We have never contended that the use of the "escape" clause in the Plan of Union was the only constitutional issue for division or only constitutional method for realignment. We have always felt and maintained that many constitutional breaches exist that justify division; but we thought the "escape" clause was the best method to accomplish it. We now feel that method has been taken away by the liberals for this decade, at least, and perhaps forever. This happened in 1973. We have always maintained that we who agree in principle should move together. We are convinced that if we wait longer, major fragmentation will occur. In order to maintain the significant corporate witness of a  Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Fatih, we must move now in 1973. Perhaps it is important for some of you that we document this historical progression. Let me summarize my statements published in the Presbyterian Journal as documented proof of the truth and consistency of our position.

1. Almost a decade ago, we began by trying to return our beloved Church to its primary mission. In 1965 we wrote:
"To my mind the Church being the Bride of Christ has as her primary mission to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the salvation of the souls of sinners and thereafter to nurture them in the faith. But there seems to be designed a deliberate effort in the Church to change the attitude of the average church member toward this fundamental message and mission..."
"There is a great danger that the Church will become just another social agency with tremendous potential for good community service but with only an incidental relationship to salvation of souls through faith in Jesus Christ..."
"It has been my observation that wherever and whenever the inspiration and authority of the Word as Inscripturated is attacked, the person and work of the Word Incarnated is demeaned. The work of Jesus Christ in the world becomes equated with all the noble causes laid before society. The zeal for the Gospel of Jesus Christ is lost and the temper of the times dictates the religious cause for the day..."
"Our principal effort should be toward the development of a constructive program of inspiration, information and instruction which the Holy Spirit may rightfully use to pour out a real spiritual revival in the pew..."
2. But by the time of the General Assembly in 1969 it was obvious that we would not be able so to return our Church. We wrote then that this Mobile Assembly with its change in our position on evolution, its unconstitutional enactment of the union presbyteries amendment, its authorization of a committee to draft a new Confession of Faith; its appointment of a Committee on Union with UPCUSA, and its endorsement of our continued participation in COCU made these facts clear:
"It is capitulation not reconciliation they offer..."
"They do not understand that we cannot and will not negotiate some things..."
"They are determined to force their program even at the cost of a split Church..."
"Their ecclesiastical, political machinery will be organized for this final hammer blow..."
"The result of all this will be to force a decision by each minister, each member, each congregation in our Church..."
3. By 1970 a number of major constitutional violations had been enacted; and we were forced to look for the best method for peaceful realignment. We suggested such a unique method at the Memphis Assembly that year in the form of the creation of provisional bodies for those who wanted to remain in the Church for the time being and preserve their right to vote and yet be guaranteed the right to withdraw with their property. During the Assembly we were called into conference in the minister's study at this great Second Church in Memphis by the two co-chairmen of the union committee. They promised such a method of peaceful realignment through an acceptable escape clause in the plan of union. We agreed to wait, but wrote:
"The scoffers of our day are the radical, determined ecumenists who have a timetable for the liquidation of the historic witness of the Presbyterian Church in the United States..."
"In my judgment, our timetable should be flexible because we are committed to a principle rather than a structure. We are committed to the preservation of a corporate witness to the truth as revealed in the holy Scriptures. This involves us in several possibilities:
"1. The possibility of revival within the present structure does exist..."
"2. Peaceful realignment might be accomplished as the existing structure is divided among men of good will..."
"3. Finally, it is always possible that a sufficient number of the issues proposed in the timetable of the radical ecumenists will be defeated and they will then leave us with our existing structure..."
4. After the 1971 Assembly in evaluating our position, a consensus was reached and published as follows: "We accept the apparent inevitability of division of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, a division caused by the program of the radical ecumenists, and agree to move now toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to Scriptures and the Westminster Standards." But to implement this consensus we suggested guidelines dictated by Christian statesmanship, to-wit:
  1. We must move only as God's Holy Spirit moves us. "For it is not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts."
  2. We must curb our human impatience and impetuosity and not take precipitous and premature action.
  3. We most move together.
  4. We must move with honor.
But in suggesting that we wait on the promised "escape clause" in the plan of union, we wrote:
"I am aware of the tactic of unreasonable delay. Those in control have said that a plan would be presented to the 1973 General Assemblies. I will accept the good faith of those who have so promised until they have proven otherwise. But all these considerations are mere speculations on the future. Only God can control that door. Until He closes it or permits it to be closed through unreasonable delays, I believe Christian statesmanship requires us to wait, for when we move, we must move with honor. "We must prepare for the move. We would still hope and pray that God would bring a great revival or give us victory in this present structure; but Christian statesmanship requires us to prepare for the alternative of a new structure..."
And so the Steering Committee was appointed to make such preparation.

5. By 1972 we had suggested a plan for a continuing Church. It was to support any plan of union with the UPUSA which contains an acceptable escape clause permitting local congregations and ministers to elect not to enter the union. We supported the plan as the most effective constitutional method for peaceful realignment. And we still believe it was the best method for the reasons we cited. But we were careful to write:
"Notice we say 'a' plan and not 'the' plan, and we use the indefinite article for several reasons:
"We recognize that the sovereign Holy Spirit may be pleased to so revive our Church that revisions in this plan may be necessary..."
"If proponents of union were to seek to defeat us with unreasonable delays, our plan would need to be changed.""
6. In August 1972, we wrote of a deliberate effort to postpone indefinitely the vote on the plan of union. We restated our often announced position on such a delay, as we wrote of the plan:
"It can be ready and presented to the respective General Assemblies in May and June, 1973. In my judgment to do otherwise would be breaking faith with the people..."
In view of this possibility we outlined alternatives to the plan such as General Assembly walk-out, Presbytery withdrawal, Presbytery dismissal of individual churches, and individual church withdrawal.

7. And so we come to the meeting of the Committee on Presbyterian Union in Dallas, Texas, in February, 1973. We came after spending 6 days in the preceding six weeks with a subcommittee on drafting. We came with a plan ready to be presented to the 1973 General Assemblies for vote. In its three day session in Dallas the Committee never discussed the substance of the plan they had been working on for almost four years. Instead they voted to cast aside this plan and start anew writing another plan. This new plan will not be presented until 1974 and then "for study only". The members of the Committee from the PCUS had succeeded in getting an indefinite delay. Before the vote to delay, I made it clear to the Committee that I felt that you would consider such a delay as a breach of faith. They voted the delay with only two dissenting votes -- mine and that of Mr. William Thompson, Stated Clerk of the UPCUSA. Next morning, in full open session, Mr. Thompson stated to the Committee that he thought the Committee had been "dishonest" and betrayed the confidence placed in you by the conservatives in the PCUS. These were his words -- not mine. He then spent 30 minutes chastising the Committee for their conduct and particularly blaming the PCUS members. Other members of the Committee from the UPCUSA privately apologized to me for what they felt was unfair conduct by the PCUS members and a breach of good faith by them.

We had accepted the promises of these PCUS leaders, the overt and covert, and trusted them in good faith as men of good will. They have broken that trust and confidence. We cannot put our faith in them again -- for they admit candidly that their decisions are not motivated by principle but by expediency. And those who wait for the constitutional issue of union with UPCUSA wait at the whim and the mercy of the liberals as expediency dictates, both as to timetable and the probability of an acceptable escape clause.

Some say they will be with us but must wait on the UPCUSA union issue. They reason that they feel a justifiable division requires such a grave constitutional issue. They say that such a union would raise a major theological issue as it would require them to be united with a group with whom they cannot agree as to doctrine. They cite the Confession of 1967 as a major theological, doctrinal deviation by the UPCUSA; and they say they cannot be linked in union with a body which subscribes thereto. To those who so reason, I would respectfully suggest that such a judgment is a matter of degree rather than a matter of principle. I would suggest two reasons --
  1. Most of us would admit that the PCUS has violated its Constitution on numerous occasions in the past 20 years. So it is not a matter that UPCUSA union would be the only constitutional deviation. It would be only one among many. For you it might be "major" enough to justify division. But the mere fact that you use the adjective "major" proves to me that you are relegating these other Constitutional breaches to the "minor" category. And when you thus begin to reason between "major" and "minor" Constitutional violations, I suggest that your conclusion must be based on the degree of the violation and not on the principle of Constitutional breach.
  2. The Constitutional change of the Book of Church Order which permits Union Presbyteries has already violated the principle of our union with a body with whose doctrine we do not agree. UPCUSA union would not change that principle; it would only change the degree of the union. Our BCO 18-6 (13) provides that our General Assembly can receive under its jurisdiction only those "other ecclesiastical bodies whose organization is conformed to the doctrine and order of this Church." In approving the Union Presbyteries Amendment to the BCO, our Church has constitutionally concluded that we agree in doctrine and order with the UPCUSA. This would include the Confession of 1967. We are as fully linked in Constitutional principle with the UPCUSA now as we would be under a full plan of union. The difference is only matter of degree. We now have only 9 presbyteries united and then we would have them all. But as a Constitutional principle, we sit with them as fully and duly elected representatives in the courts of the Church -- General Assembly, Synod and Presbytery. Without any further Constitutional change, every single presbytery in our Church could be united with the UPCUSA. Union with the UPCUSA is already a Constitutional fact. Now you say that you will leave when three-fourths of the presbyteries adopt a plan of union with the UPCUSA. To be logically consistent would you not have to leave when three-fourths of the presbyteries become united as union presbyteries? Then do you not see that your conclusion is not based on the violation of the principle of Constitutional union with UPCUSA but on the degree thereof.
Thus I would contend that in Constitutional principle we are already united with the UPCUSA. And those, who see this union as intolerable, have now every Constitutional principle violated which will be violated with full organic union. You may be reluctant to move now because the degree of union is not sufficient for you; but you cannot logically argue that the principle of Constitutional union has already been settled.

Now let us turn to consider alternative procedures for those who are ready now, in 1973, to raise the banner for a new Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith. We can eliminate a General Assembly walk-out; for most conservative commissioners have decided not to even attend this General Assembly. This leaves three alternatives: (1) withdrawal of entire Presbytery, (2) Presbytery dismissal of individual churches, and (3) unilateral withdrawal of individual churches by congregational action. Presbytery withdrawal still remains a good method; but since few Presbyteries have any real possibility of such an action, we feel it better to discuss the details of this method directly with these Presbyteries. A Presbytery can dismiss a church with its property; but the present attitude of the liberals poses problems with this method. They have taken hard line; and I predict will even get tougher. It is difficult for me to understand how men, who bear the name of Christ, can display to a watching world such a harsh, mean and vindictive attitude toward their brothers in Christ. A few months ago they seemed willing to heed the advice of our beloved Moderator, Dr. L. Nelson Bell. In speaking to the Committee on Presbyterian Union in Charlotte last year, in his first public appearance as Moderator, Dr. Bell said he favored the "escape" clause because he thought it "unchristian" and "immoral" to try to coerce a congregation to remain in a voluntary organization as the church when they could not in good conscience support it. But as time disclosed that this movement was of mammoth proportions and thus threatened the power and purse of the liberals, their attitude began to harden under the advice of their leaders. Their public voice, the Presbyterian Outlook, actually chastised their followers for being fair with us. Can you imagine Christians being criticized for being "fair" with other Christians? Well in its April 9, 1973, issue this voice of the liberals wrote for the world to reach these words --
"Some Presbyteries who appear to be taking a casual attitude toward the dismissal of church property...need to be reminded of their pledged obligations..."
"In some cases we have heard that presbytery executives under a distorted understanding of fair play or their own responsibilities have actually counselled dissidents as to courses to pursue..." (sic)
"It is folly to permit the alienating effort to move ahead unchallenged..."
Following this line of advice, we have seen liberals across the church begin to adopt this tough, harsh, and vindictive tack. Hence, even in a Presbytery that feels that it is "unchristian" and "immoral" to try to coerce a congregation to remain against the conscience of its majority membership; and even if such a Presbytery votes to dismiss such a congregation with its property, there is always one or more liberal ministers in that Presbytery who will file a complaint against such a Presbytery dismissal. The "ruse" reason is used that it is to protect the rights of the loyal minority in that congregation. We know it is a "ruse"; because we have been the loyal minority in the PCUS for years, and they have never shown any inclination to even listen to, much less protect, our rights and positions. It is obvious that such malicious tactics are designed to discourage congregations from taking such action for dismissal, and to put such congregations on notice that they will be tied up in the church courts for years if they take this procedure. Hence if this procedure is used, we suggest that once the Presbytery acts dismissing the local church, any complaints to higher church courts to be ignored. Just take the position that you have been legally dismissed and no longer subject to any ecclesiastical court jurisdiction. And if the liberals want to take it to a civil court to try to get your property, let them bear the public onus of carrying Christian brothers to a civil court against the injunctions of the Bible.

But probably for most congregations, the third alternative is the best present procedure. Just call a congregational meeting and vote to withdraw and so notify your Presbytery. Thereafter, politely refuse to entertain any commission or committee on the principle that you are no longer subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Once again this procedure could bring a civil lawsuit over your property. But again the liberals would have the public onus of beginning the lawsuit against the express will of the majority of the congregation. Many constitutional lawyers feel that this right is preserved to the local congregation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to our U.S. Constitution.

You will readily recognize that there are perils in all three procedures. You my end up in a civil court battle for your church property. It begins to be quite obvious that it is your church property that most interests the liberals. In this same April 9, 1973 issue of the Presbyterian Outlook they gave their motive away when it was written
"it would appear that a presbytery would be better advised to take the initiative to dissolve the pastorate, and, where required, dissolve the Church..."
Why "dissolve the church"? Because under our BCO when a church has been dissolved and no disposition has been made of its property, the property goes to presbytery (BCO 6-3). Thus they have clearly announced that they want your property. This is further proven by their willingness to let small congregations without much property go without protest; but they usually contest the dismissal or withdrawal of a church that owns choice property, particularly if it is free of debt. Now, we have an obligation to preserve and protect the property that has been purchased with the gifts and sacrifices of our God-fearing forefathers; and if forced to do so, we serve notice here and now that we shall fiercely battle them for it. But, do not let us be like them. We declare here and now that property is not the main issue. If we are forced by our convictions to risk the loss of all property, no matter how dear, for the sake of the honor and integrity of the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, such a risk we are fully prepared to take. We prefer it not; but we will not shrink from it, if God requires it of us. We will not put our pew ahead of our Lord.

So the die is cast. To me our course is clear. Some may say, "Why 1973?"; but I say "Why wait?" If conscience dictates that it is your duty to wait, then you must wait, then you must wait, you should wait, you dare not do otherwise. But if not, why wait? Now I suggest that the decision for a minister and the decision for a congregation is somewhat different. A minister may go at any time without peril -- now or 5 years from now -- but if you are responsible for a congregation and for those yet unborn, what will be preached and taught in your church 5, 10, 20 years from now. You have other considerations to think about. What then can a congregation gain by waiting? If yours is a congregation that does not use PCUS literature, and does not support the PCUS program, then you have already in effect, separated. What can you possibly gain by waiting? Surely you don't believe that you can reform the PCUS? What then do you gain by waiting? But you may lose by waiting. You may lose the only chance you will ever have to leave and take your property. Do you really believe there will ever be a Plan of Union with an acceptable escape clause? Are you willing to wait 5 to 10 years on the speculative chance? Is it not true that as your conservative brothers leave your position in your presbytery is weakened? What is going to be your position when your presbytery is restructured as it is surely going to be? Is there not less chance of civil lawsuits when churches go in mass rather than later to go in isolated situations? Is it not better to join with your Christian brothers of like mind and raise now the Standard in our beloved Southland of a new church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith? To me answers are loud and clear. Move now, together, toward a Church reborn.

And as we move, our attitude to others is most important. We move with determination and resolve, but with tears, sorrow and mourning for the necessity that is laid upon us. Regardless of the attitudes or actions of others, we will remember that we represent the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the King and Head of the Church. As his ambassadors to the watching world, we must let this mind be in us which was in Christ Jesus. Let men everywhere notice in us the three effects of nearness to Jesus -- humility, holiness and happiness. To those who would be unfair and harsh toward us we hear Him say --
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use and persecute you."
To those who agree with us in principle but disagree as to procedure, we extend our hand of continued fellowship and good will and our open invitation and plea to join us soon. For you we hear Him say --
"Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word."
To you who may be called upon to suffer for this cause, we hear Him say --
"Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven..."
And as we move, let there be a great outpouring of prayer. Let us remember the people of God in the wilderness when Joshua fought in the valley and Moses prayed on the mountain. The prayers of Moses discomforted the enemy more than the fighting of Joshua. Yet both were needed. It is remarked that Joshua never grew weary in fighting, but Moses grew weary in praying. It is far easier to fight than to pray. The more spiritual an exercise; the more difficult it is for flesh and blood to maintain it. Intermittent supplication will avail little as we move. We must wrestle all day every day and hold up our hands "until the going down of the sun."

Let me close with a statement made by Charles Haddon Spurgeon about 80 years ago. Listen carefully to the exhortation of the great man of God as he so aptly describes our present opportunity.
"We admire a man who was firm in the faith, say 400 years ago...but such a man today is a nuisance, and must be put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot, or give him a worse name if you can think of one. Yet imagine that in those ages past, Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their compeers had said, "The world is out of order; but if we try to set it right we shall only make a great row, and get ourselves into disgrace. Let us go to your chambers, put on our nightcaps, and sleep over the bad times, and perhaps when we wake up things will have grown better". "Such conduct on their part would have entailed upon us a heritage of error. Age after age would have gone down into the infernal deeps, and the pestiferous bogs of error would have swallowed all. These men loved the faith and the name of Jesus too well to see them trampled on..."
"It is today as it was in the Reformers' days. Decision is needed. Here is the day for the man, where is the man for the day? We who have had the Gospel passed to us by martyr hands dare not trifle with it, nor sit by and hear it denied by traitors, who pretend to love it, but inwardly abhor every line of it..."
"Look you, sirs, there are ages yet to come. If the Lord does not speedily appear, there will come another generation, and another, and all these generations will be tainted and injured if we are not faithful to God and to His truth today. We have come to a turning point in the road. If we turn to the right mayhap our children and our children's children will go that way; but if we turn to the left, generations yet unborn will curse our names for having been unfaithful to God and to His Word."
 The Law is the law of Love; and the procedure is to rescue the perishing, Godspeed!!! Amen.

Saturday, August 14, 2010

Report Teaches Us A Lot About Where We Are


The following report was submitted and adopted into the minutes of Central Mississippi Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (April 13-15, 1926).

Your Committee on Sabbath would respectfully submit the following report:

Your committee on Sabbath Observance can at the very outset but express regret that they are forced to come again before you with the same mournful statement as in the past, that they have nothing either bright or encouraging to present, but rather the reverse.

It pains our hearts to say it, yet truth demands the statement, that while the Christian world seems to be pressing with unwonted strides toward the goal in other directions, aiming to get nearer to the Scripture ideal, in bringing the world more and more under the influence of gospel truth, yet in the matter of Sabbath observance, in stead of lifting up, it seems actually more and more to be losing its hold upon the masses; and just here we are confronted with the startling inquiry, whether the world, with all its boasted progress, can really and truly be getting upon a higher plane, while the Sabbath of the Lord remains in the dust, and this sign of divine sovereignty lies trampled under the foot of man.

We would not be guilty of gross pessimism, or painting the cloud too dark, but while some of our people are fairly well observing the Sabbath, yet it is rapidly assuming the characteristics of the continental Sabbath, so far as the masses are concerned, being by them regarded as a day of recreation and pleasure, and even of business, if necessary, and especially is this true in the cities and towns and sections of country adjacent to them. If we would be called upon to say why this is the case, we would unhesitatingly say that it is due to the apathy and indifference of a large part of God’s professed people.

If all the professed Christian in America were united in their opposition, the evil would soon be abated. It is when “men sleep” that the enemy does the work of “sowing tares.”

Is the Sabbath a divine institution of permanent and universal obligation? Is it of God and did He intend it for all mankind? These are the questions that lie at the root of the present-day Sabbath day controversy. We unhesitatingly answer, YES, it’s a divine institution; YES, God intended it for all mankind, but many are losing a sense of the sacred quality of the day. Many are turning it from a holy to a holiday, and the crying need of our time is to have a sense of sacredness of the day revived in the hearts of the people. It is useless to talk about the manner in which the Sabbath should be observed, unless the people are convinced of its sacred character.

As to the best course to be pursued in meeting this growing and great evil, your committee is wholly unable to say. They would, however, venture one or two suggestions.

The first is, that as the matter is more directly and intimately under the eye and purview of the pastors and officers of the church, your committee would urge upon them the duty and responsibility of constantly keeping this subject before the people, with a view of awakening a deeper interest. We feel that much can be done in this way. Second, that the pastors and officers by their utterances and example put all the people on their guard against the great danger of becoming — by their patronage — “partakers of other men’s sins” unwittingly though it may be.

Respectfully submitted,

C.P. Colmery, Chairman

Followers

  © Blogger template 'Personal Blog' by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP