July 2017

You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2017.

July 6: Cultivate Peace Within the Church

6 July, 2017 in July 2017 by archivist | No comments

A Godly Witness to the Truth of the Gospel

Recently I had hoped to write of the Rev. Moses Roney, a Reformed Presbyterian pastor. Time did not permit that post this year. But I did find the following and I think it is quite useful. This comes from the pages of the May 1853 issue of The Covenanter. And perhaps a shorter post today will allow more time to think upon this needful message. Sound counsel and good words to take to heart:—

TO MAKE A PEACEFUL CHURCH.

1. Remember that we are all subject to failings and infirmities of one kind or another.

2. Bear with and not magnify each other’s infirmities. — Galatians 1:5

3. Pray for one another in your social meetings, and particularly in private. — James 1:16.

4. Avoid going from house to house, for the purpose of hearing news and interfering with other people’s business.

5. Always turn a deaf ear to any slanderous report, and lay no charge brought against any person until well founded.

6. If a member is in fault, tell him of it in private before it is mentioned to others.

7. Watch against shyness of each other, and put the best construction on any action that has the appearance of opposition or resentment.

8. Observe the just rule of Solomon–that is, leave off contention before it be meddled with. — Proverbs 17:14.

9. If a member has offended, consider how glorious, how God-like it is to forgive, and how unlike a Christian it is to revenge. — Ephesians 4:2.

  1. Lastly, consider the express injunction of Scripture, and the beautiful example of Christ. — Ephesians 4:32; 1 Peter 2:21; and John 18:5.

July 5: What Was the “Third Indulgence”?

5 July, 2017 in July 2017 by davidtmyers | No comments

Today we will borrow a few paragraph from Men of the Covenant by Alexander Smellie in order to relate the story of the Third Indulgence of King James II of England.  Indulgences 1 and 2 were on February 12 and March 31 of 1687.  This Third Indulgence took place in London on June 28th, 1687 and then reissued on this day July 5, 1687.  Smellie writes:

“King James touched nothing which he did not mismanage and spoil. His policy was a curious mixture of tyranny and toleration.  A Romanist himself, he was resolved to grant new liberties to his Catholic subjects. But he dared not single them out alone for the enjoyment of favour; the country, he realized, was too fervently Protestant to permit such a preference.  Of necessity he embraced other excluded folk in the largesse he distributed. In Scotland, the year 1687 saw no less that three Indulgences issued under the royal seal.  These suspended ‘all penal and sanguinary laws made against any for nonconformity to the religion established by law,’ and gave sanction to His Majesty’s ‘loving subjects to meet and serve God after their own way and manner, be it in private homes, chapels, or places purposely hired or built for that use.’ Only against the Coventicler did the lightnings continue to flash forth; the Acts which Parliament had decreed for the suppression of the gatherings in the open fields were left in full force; for impenitent Cameronians it seem that there could be no whisper of mercy and no outgate into freedom.  Yet here were large measures of relief which might carry in them the promise of a hopefuller era. If the followers of Renwick denounced them, there were Presbyterian ministers, in prison or banishment  or hiding,  who welcomed James’s Indulgences, and returned to their homes under the shelter of their provisos. But even they, profiting although they did by the altered current of affairs, had no confidence in the man who brought it about.” (p. 411)

W. M. Hetherington, author of the History of the Church of Scotland to the Period of the Disruption in 1843, picks up the account of this Third Indulgence. He writes on pg. 286 – 287:  “Few were deceived by these hypocritical pretences (of the king). All true Protestants . . . perceived clearly enough, that direct favor of the Papists was intended; and it was not unfairly surmised that, by the universal toleration, the king hoped to throw the various denominations of Protestants into such a state of rivalry and collision, that they would weaken each other, and prepare for the establishment of Popery upon their ruins. There is little reason  to doubt that such as his majesty’s aim and expectation; but both the immediate and the ultimate consequences were very different from what he intended and hoped. . . . In Scotland, almost all the Presbyterian ministers in the kingdom availed themselves of the opportunity which it gave them of resuming public worship, and collecting again the scattered congregations. Many, both ministers and people, returned to their long-lost homes, and engaged with renewed fervor in the reconstruction of the Presbyterian Church by the revival of its unforgotten forms of government and discipline, the reunion of its scattered but still living members, and the resuscitation of its imperishable principles.”

Words to Live By: Let us always remember that “the king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He  turns it wherever His wishes.” (Proverbs 21:1 NAS).  Whether we live and move and have our being in a kingdom or a republic, the truth remains the same.  Let us beseech our sovereign Lord to move in the hearts of those who govern our times to recognize that “righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34 NASB.)

July 4: True Freedom in Christ Alone!

4 July, 2017 in July 2017 by davidtmyers | No comments

Happy Independence Day
by Rev. David T. Myers

On this Independence Day, we reflect on what freedom means to us as Christian Presbyterians.  Among all the benefits which we enjoy as Christian citizens, chief among which should be the freedom to worship God according to the dictates of our conscience as regulated by His Word, the Bible.  That didn’t happen by accident, of course.  We must thank at least in word the signers of the Declaration of Independence who were ready to sacrifice everything so that we might enjoy the blessings of this nation today.  And of the 56 signers of that historic document, 12 individuals,  or 21% of the fifty-six signers were Presbyterian in conviction, or in some way possessed close ties with the Presbyterian church.

While the Presbyterian Church was never thought of as being the state church of the new nation, still countless Presbyterian congregations were thought of as being the building blocks of the new nation. There was a reason why a member of the British Parliament commented during the American  Revolution that Cousin America has run away with a Presbyterian parson. Further, there was a particular hatred of the Presbyterianism by British officers and troops. They burned down countless Presbyterian churches, destroyed their Bibles and pastoral books, or used their buildings for hospitals, stables, and storage centers. During the years of the Revolution, presbyteries often met for business far from their normal locations during peace time.

So as I simply list the names of those twelve Presbyterian signers of the Declaration of Independence, how many had you heard of before, and what do you know of their lives?  They are: Benjamin Rush (of Pennsylvania), James Smith (of Pennsylvania), George Taylor (of Pennsylvania), James Wilson (of Pennsylvania), Abraham Clark (of New Jersey), Richard Stockton (of New Jersey), John Hart (of New Jersey), and John Witherspoon  (of New Jersey), Philip Livingston (of New York), William Floyd (of New York), Matthew Thornton (of New Hampshire), and Thomas McKean (of Delaware).

Some of these will be covered at relevant dates in this historical devotional. But all of them need to be remembered by you for their faithful commitment to God and country.

Words to Live By: It would be a great spiritual exercise for you or one of your family to study the background of each of these men for a daily or Sunday home devotional to share with the members of your family, or just for yourself, or for your congregation. Many of them shared great hardship due to their commitment to our nation. May we be just as eager to stand up for righteousness today, whether in our homes, or at our work places, or in society at large.

July 3: Bolter’s Reply to Presbytery

3 July, 2017 in July 2017 by archivist | No comments

Today’s post provides a good example of press coverage of the modernist controversy during the 1930s. On July 3d, 1936, the following news item appeared in the Wilmington, Delaware newspaper. The Rev. Harold S. Laird has been mentioned before on TDPH, but today we also have the added names of Doctors Roy and Bertha Byram, as well as the Rev. Robert H. Graham. The Byrams went on to serve as medical missionaries in Manchuria and were imprisoned by the Japanese during WW2. Rev. Graham, who was born in 1905, remained a pastor with the PCofA/OPC and passed away on February 27, 1993.  At this time, I do not have birth and death dates available for the Byrams. This article also mentions a few lesser known conservative groups, The League of Faith (a PCUSA renewal group), and The Elder’s Testimony, both of which will have to be discussed at some later date.

“Bolters” appears to have been an apparently derogatory term used to describe those leaving the PCUSA in the 1930s. The term may have been one chosen by journalists, or it may have simply been picked up by them, as they heard it used by PCUSA loyalists. The term appears in a number of the news clippings preserved in the Welbon Collection. While it is a somewhat descriptive term, I suppose the intended implication was that these men, women and churches were leaving rashly and without having properly thought the matter through.

BOLTERS REPLY TO PRESBYTERY

Fundamentalist Pastors In­sist They are Loyal But Hit Rule of Few

Declare Issue is Doctrinal, Deplore Conferring Author­ity on Small Group

Fundamentalist ministers of the Presbytery of New Castle, including those who have renounced its author­ity and that of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., yesterday announced here a statement, which they had adopted in answer to a recent one by the Presbytery setting forth its doctrinal beliefs and stand in the fundamentalist–modernist controversy.

<

p style=”text-align: justify;” align=”left”>Harold Samuel LairdThe Rev. Harold S. Laird, formerly of First and Central Presbyterian Church, recently suspended by Presbytery for continuing to refuse to resign membership on the outlawed Independent Board for Presbyterian Foreign Missions; and Dr. Roy M. Byram, who recently resigned from the Presbyterian Board  of Foreign Missions to join the independent one, and accept appointment to Manchukuo, with his wife, also a medical missionary, attended the meeting of fundamentalists in Pittsburgh, where the statement was drafted. The Drs. Byram formerly were supported on the mission field at Kankei, Korea, by First and Cen­tral Church.

Loyalty Is Affirmed

byramThe fundamentalist statement, endorsed here by that group, follows:

“As loyal Presbyterians, loyal in the Lord to our beloved Church and her standards, and desirous of being loyal to her boards and agencies, we believe that the issue which is troubling the peace of the Church is primarily doctrinal and are convinced that doctrines not in accord with her standards are being tolerated and even fostered by boards and agencies of the Church.

“Believing heartily in the great educational and evangelistic mis­sion of the Church, we hold that voluntary giving only is acceptable to the Lord, and that conscientious scruples should be respected in the case of all who are loyal to the con­stitution of the Church.

Church Held Democratic

“We believe that the Presbyterian Church is a democratic and repre­sentative church, and we hold that the concentration of authority and power in the hands of a few, the making of boards and agencies the masters, and not the servants, of the people, the attributing to adminis­trative acts of casual majorities of the General Assembly of supra-constitutional authority, is all contrary to the constitution, destructive of true Presbyterianism, and should be resisted.

“We deplore the severe treatment which has been meted out to men of our communion conspicuous for their loyalty to the doctrines of our Church and for zeal for its purity, and we call upon all to work and pray for the healing of a breach in our communion that has brought shame and sorrow upon the Church.

Three Proposals Made

“Believing that the supreme need of the Church is return to full loyalty to her historic standards, we make the following proposals:

“1. We request the national com­mittee of the Elders’ Testimony and the League of Faith to issue from time to time statements to the eld­ers and ministers of the church in­forming them regarding the great doctrinal and ecclesiastical issues that are now before the church, especially with a view to exposing the invasion of unbelief, and the tyranny of organization.

“2. We recommend that The Presbyterian and Christianity To­day be urged to become the chan­nels for this militant testimony.

“3. That copies of these resolutions be sent to the League of Faith and the National Committee of the Elders’ Testimony, with the request that they take the necessary steps to call a national convention in the autumn for the purpose of furthering the ends herein expressed, and that should no steps be taken by those two organizations, a meeting of this group be called by its chairman and its secretary in the autumn.”

Forest Church Defers Action

Forest Presbyterian Church, Mid­dletown, whose pastor, the Rev. Robert H. Graham, has already join­ed the Presbyterian Church of  America, and which had indicated that it probably would also seek admission, has decided to continue in its independent status for at least a month longer.

It has been expected that Forest Church would follow Eastlake Church here in joining the new church.

This action was taken at a congregational meeting Wednesday night, when, according to Mr. Graham. a large number of the members who believe that they should remain loyal to the Presbytery of New Castle, attended than at the earlier meeting. He said the vote Wednes­day night did not indicate strong opposition to joining the new church, but that those in favor felt it might be wiser to defer action.

Mr. Graham is one of five min­isters suspended by the Presbytery in connection with their renuncia­tion of its authority and other of­fenses of which the Presbytery ac­cuses them in connection with the fundamentalist–modernist dispute here and nationally. Four, of whom Mr. Graham is one, were given temporary suspension, pending trial, while Mr. Laird was suspended indefinitely. He was tried and con­victed on charges of disobedience to the government and discipline of the church.

The Rev. Dr. John W. Christie, a member of Presbytery’s permanent committee on National Missions, to which was delegated the task of supplying the pulpits of churches of the temporarily suspended ministers and all others where there are no pas­tors, visited Middletown yesterday afternoon and last night. He con­ferred with officers and members of the Forest Church who have re­mained loyal to Presbytery.

[transcript of a news clipping from The Wilmington Morning News, 3 July 1936. This clipping is preserved in Scrapbook No. 3, page 279, in the Henry G. Welbon Manuscript Collection.]

Tags: ,

July 2: Van Horn on WSC Q. 16

2 July, 2017 in July 2017 by archivist | No comments

STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

Q. 16. — Did all mankind fall in Adam’s first transgression?

A. — The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression.

Scripture References: Acts 17:26. Gen. 2:17. Rom. 5:12. I Cor. 15:21.

Questions:

1. How many persons do we read of in Scripture that represent the human race?

We read of two who represent the human race. The first Adam and the second, Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 15:45)

2. What reason is given in Scripture that the posterity of Adam fell with Adam?

The reason is found in the covenant of works, in which life was promised upon condition of obedience, and was made with Adam. This was made not only for Adam but for his posterity.

3. Since the covenant was a covenant of works, does this mean that Adam could merit eternal life?

No, it does not mean that Adam could merit eternal life. It was still God’s grace that would give eternal life, but a grace that would reward obedience.

4. Was it fair that Adam should represent his posterity?

Yes, it was fair since he was to be the common parent of all mankind, was created perfectly holy, with full power to fulfill the condition of the covenant.

5. How could all mankind be in Adam when he first sinned?

All mankind was in Adam in two ways:

1. Virtually, as a natural root and,
2. Representatively, as a covenant head.

6. What is meant by saying “all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him?”

The phrase “ordinary generation” is used to exclude Christ who descended as to his human body from Adam, but not by ordinary generation since he was conceived in the womb of a virgin by the power of the Almighty God overshadowing her.

7. I have always heard, “In Adam’s fall we sinned all.” Is this a good commentary on this question?

This is an excellent commentary. It should be understood by it that we are sinners first of all because Adam, our representative, sinned for us. Our corrupted nature is the result of our inheritance in Adam.

A HARD LESSON

Time and time again we hear people say, “I do not think it is fair that God hold us responsible for Adam’s sin!” Many people outside of Jesus Christ use this as one of their main excuses for refusing to come to Him. But whether we like it or not, the Bible teaches that God deals with humanity on the basis of the principle of representation.

This principle is sometimes a hard lesson for us to learn. For those of us saved by grace, saved by the “second Adam”, it is not hard for us to accept the second representation. But sometimes even Christians wonder at the fairness of the first representation. This works at the mind of many Christians though very few will put it into words.

We must remember in this realm, as in all realms of our relationship with God, He is the Creator and Sovereign Lord, possessed of the right to require anything of His creatures in whatever way His wisdom might determine. His authority was, and is, unlimited. God could do anything to Adam personally, and with a view to his posterity, which was consistent with His own perfections. He is a law unto Himself and He acts according to His own will. At the same time, in His relationship with Adam in the Garden, He did not require anything of Adam that Adam was not able to bear.

This is the perspective that all God’s children must learn. The recognition that He is Sovereign and we are not. The recognition that whatever method He might want to use to teach us our lessons, the method is fair and just, for He is the essence of fairness. Our business is not to complain but to obey, not to fret but to accept, not to murmur but to rest in our duty of decreasing, in all humility.

All of this is a hard lesson for us to learn. James put it very well when he said, “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He shall lift you up.” Many Christians desire to go a long way in the Lord’s work but do not do so because they have not learned to give God the complete right to any method, any means, any principle He might want to use with them. Some think so many times God is unfair, they refuse to let Him have His way with them, they refuse to submit to His authority and then wonder why He Is not able to use them as they wish. In all our thoughts and words, in all our actions and reactions, yea, in all areas of our lives we are accountable unto Him. And obedience to the Word of God transcends duty and privilege, attaining unto honor as He is thus glorified in our daily lives. (Deut. 11: 1,13-19).

« Older entries § Newer entries »