A Pure Ministry was His Concern

Born in what is today Northern Ireland, or Ulster, in 1703, Gilbert Tennent, the oldest son of William Tennent, was the first of five sons of the Tennent family to train for, and minister in, the Presbyterian Church in America. Emigrating to the colonies in 1717 to Pennsylvania, he studied under his father William, the elements of  Scriptural languages and theology. His training must have been the equivalent of a bachelor of arts degree, because when he entered Yale College, he completed a masters of arts degree. He then helped his father build the Log College, as it was derisively known, which was the forerunner of the College of New Jersey, which turned into Princeton Seminary and University.

Licensed and ordained in the Presbyterian church, Gilbert Tennent, after a brief ministry in Newcastle, Delaware, moved in 1726 to New Brunswick Presbyterian Church, in New Jersey.  It was there that he came into contact with a Dutch Reformed pastor, Theodorus Frelinghausen, who regularly preached revivalist messages to his congregation and surrounding congregations. Tennent, whose ministry up to this point, was failing as far as converts were concerned, and deathly ill on top of it, made a pact with God.  Promising to press for the souls of his people, he asked God to give  him another six months of life.  God gave him that, and more. He began to preach evangelistically to his own people.

Heard one day by English evangelist George Whitefield, who described his sermon as “a searching sermon,” Tennent immediately began to feel the effects of criticism to his ministry as well as the educational quality of the teaching at his father’s Log College.  It was then in March 8, 1740 that he preached that stern message entitled “The Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry,” comparing those who opposed the revival methods to Pharisees who were unsaved. (See March 8)  One year later, in 1741, the first schism occurred in the Presbyterian Church between the Old Side Presbyterians and the New Side Presbyterians. This schism was to last until 1758, when the reunion came with the aid of a now repentant Gilbert Tennent.  (See our blog entry for May 25 from several years back.)

Gilbert Tennent’s third congregation was at the Second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, in 1743. This congregation was a New Side Presbyterian congregation, formed exclusively of converts to the Whitefield’s strong preaching. He pastored that church until his death on July 22, 1764.

Gilbert Tennent had a decided care and concern for the purity of Christ’s church.

Words to Live By: Despite an unwise, harsh message at an earlier point in his ministry which brought a schism in the Presbyterian Church at large, his later ministry at Second Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia was in the midst of a turn-around, or repentant spirit in him. We may not want to copy his methods to bring revival to God’s people and repentance to the lost, but the purity of Christ’s church is still an important care and concern for all ministers and members of His church.

Blow the Dust Off  that Larger Catechism
by Rev. David T. Myers

On this date in 1648, July 20^th,  the Westminster Larger Catechism was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh, Scotland. Yet to countless Presbyterians today, the Larger Catechism is a forgotten creed in our churches.  Yet it should not be.

In the words of Professor W. Robert Godfrey, it is “a mine of fine gold theologically, historically, and spiritually.” (pg ix in his “Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism.”)  It was always intended to be for the more mature Christians in the historic Christian faith, which certainly includes teaching and ruling elders, deacons, adult leaders in Christian education in the local church, and anyone else who may serve as a spiritual leader in the Church, or desire to be.

The value of the Larger Catechism, as outlined by W. Robert Godfrey in his introduction to the Catechism, is evidenced by its outstanding summaries of Biblical doctrine. I think of Question No. 77 which asks of the difference between justification and sanctification.  In an examination by a Presbytery committee, this author was once asked the difference between justification and sanctification by a ruling elder! By God’s good grace, I had reviewed that answer just prior to the examination, and was enabled to answer it succinctly. Could you, the reader, relate its differences between these two theological doctrines? Larger Catechism Q. 77 informs you of the answer.

The value of the Larger Catechism is also found in that some of its answers are superior even to the formulations of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The late John Murray believed this was the case with Q&A 30 – 32 on the Covenant of Grace, as being superior to Chapter 7, section 3 of the Confession. Too, the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin, as explained in L.C. 22 was superior to what WCF 6:3 says, the late Westminster Seminary professor believed.  We cannot afford to be ignorant of the fulness of the Larger Catechism.

Third, the exposition of the Ten Commandments is especially rich spiritually. It is true that “excessive elaboration” or overly-minute examinations of that which is commanded and forbidden of Exodus 20, tends to be a drag to countless readers and students. Yet Dr. Godfrey concludes “the Larger Catechism’s exposition of the law is in fact a useful basis for meditation and self-examination as it opens up the meaning of the commandments for the benefit of the believer who seeks to lead a godly life.” (pg. xiii)  Should that not be the goal for all growing believers?

Next, the value of the Larger Catechism is found in its presentation of the doctrine of the church, as developed by the author of this introduction. He correctly points out that such a presentation is entirely absent from the Shorter Catechism, except in an inference to the persons of baptism.

And last, the value of this Larger Catechism, according to Dr. Godfrey, is that it is a full, balanced, edifying summary of the Christian faith, a worthy aid as we grow in a knowledge of God’s truth.

Words to Live By:
I can do no less than recommend the Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism, as authored by Johannes G. Vos, edited by G. I. Williamson, and published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House. It has been my constant companion  in my pastoral and personal devotions.

Yes, the Larger Catechism  has language problems in that it is fixed in sixteenth century language. Certainly, we have had no problem in translating inspired Holy Scripture into the language of the  twentieth century, with versions  such as the New American Standard Bible. Why isn’t there a movement to do the same with the language of the Westminster Confessional Standards?  Fellow elders, we need overtures to our respective presbyteries and General Assemblies to bring the Westminster Confession Standards up-to-date in their language!

My plea to our readers is to rediscover the Larger Catechism of  the Westminster Standards.  You will find it to be all that Professor Godfrey says it is.  And it will be to you, as a mature Christian, a worthy help as you worship and serve the Lord God from  day to day.  For our teaching elders, the Larger Catechism will be a help as you instruct the people of God in the Reformed Faith from Lord’s Day to Lord’s Day.

Time to Move for a New Church

The evidence was already in, in fact, it was well in.  All of the efforts of the conservatives in the Southern Presbyterian Church (Presbyterian Church U.S.) had failed to stop the tide of liberalism in that once great church.  So after the last General Assembly in 1971, something had to be done.

Gathering together in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 15, 1971, a group of conservative Presbyterians met to discuss the situation.  Realizing that some key elders were not present, they met two weeks later on July 30th at the Airport Hilton in Atlanta, Georgia. This was a meeting which was filled with talk to the heavenly Father as well as to those of like precious faith. They met all together and then in small groups.

By the morning of the next day, some statements were presented to the group.  They were as follows:  “A plan for the continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed faith: 1. To create a climate of opinion favorable to the continuation of conservative presbyteries and churches loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith, by promoting as strong an image as possible of such loyalty through actions taken by synods, presbyteries, and congregations. 2. To identify presbyteries and congregations willing to take such a stand.  And 3. To accept the inevitability of division in the PCUS and to move now toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to Scripture and the Westminster Standards.

This intent was breathed in prayer in, in the discussion towards it, and breathed out in prayer at the conclusion of it.  Men who had been through the battle to return the PCUS to the faith of the fathers wept at the very prospect of the future.  And when the vote came in favor of the three points, there were no high fives, or shouts of victory, but rather silence, as one of the men there said, a heavy silence of profound sadness.  They were not merely leaving the southern church.  The southern church had left them and their ordained convictions for a mess of liberal pottage, as Cain had done much earlier in his life.

A timetable was then worked out followed by the organization of a Steering Committee.  The plans were set in motion for a Continuing Church, which in time was named the Presbyterian Church in America. An Advisory Convention was held on August 7-9, 1973, laying the groundwork for the new denomination’s first General Assembly. To view the Minutes of that Convention, click here.

Some Interesting Features from the Advisory Convention Minutes, as the founding fathers mapped out what kind of denomination they wanted:—

46. All Believers Welcome
It was resolved that the Continuing Presbyterian Church movement actively seek out and welcome into denominational fellowship kindred believers unable to worship God in the wholeness of Reformed theology.

47. All Races Welcome
It was resolved that the Continuing Presbyterian Church movement welcome fellow believers in Christ regardless of race.

48. Ecumenical Relations
It was resolved that the ecumenical connections of the Continuing Presbyterian Church be limited to distinctly evangelical organizations, and that no consideration be given to affiliation with the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches, now or at any time in the future.

Words to Live By:
Thank God for men and women with a firm conviction of the historic Christian faith.  Praise God for Christian leaders who refused to compromise the truth of the gospel for a mixture of theological error.  We need men and women like these in every age, for the Christian church to march on and be the appointed means to bring the gospel to every creature.  Be a part of your local church if it is holding faithfully to the faith once delivered unto the saints.