God’s Gifts Recognized by God’s People

There are three dates in the life of Archibald Alexander, the first professor of Princeton Theological Seminary, which stand out in importance to this stalwart for the faith.

The first is October 1790.  That was the month and year when young Alexander was placed under care by the Lexington, Virginia Presbytery.  How different is this proceeding than what takes place today in being brought under care.  A candidate bring an endorsement from the Session of Elders of which he is a member.  That endorsement includes his Christian character and promise of usefulness in the ministry.  It should also speak of the activities of ministry that the candidate  has involved himself in within the church at large or a local church in particular.  An examination is made concerning his experimental religion and his motives for seeking the ministry.  Two questions of personal promises regarding both his relation to his Session and the Presbytery in Christian experience and education are then made.  A brief charge is brought from the Bible and then his name is on the role of Presbytery as a man under care.

In  eighteenth century  America, the prospective candidate. was assigned a paper in Latin on a doctrinal subject along with a sermon to be proclaimed.  Alexander was assigned justification by faith alone and a sermon subject of the difference between a dead and living faith.  Further, he was to lecture on Hebrews 6:1-6 and assigned Jeremiah 1:7 as his sermon.

The next step was licensure, which took place on October 1, 1791.  What is remarkable here is that his ministry under licensure was away from the Presbytery rather than being immediately and directly within the bounds of the Presbytery.  Archibald Alexander would travel on horseback to various communities for the next thirty-six  months, preaching 132 sermons during that three plus months.  And these sermons were not the introduction, three points, and a poem for application type sermons.   They were two hours or more in length.  And they were proclaimed without notes on the pulpit desk.

Then Hanover Presbytery ordained Archibald Alexander on June 7, 1794.  Upon that event in his spiritual life, he began the preaching, teaching, administering, and studying the Word of God for which he was recognized by all believers in all centuries.

Words to Live By: Normally, all we must do is to please God by our plans and activities.  Yet when God’s people confirm our Lord’s calling to His service, we are encouraged to proceed ahead in our efforts to study, serve, and/or sacrifice.  Let us pray fervently for God’s people to be thrust out into His harvest field, for the harvest is great, but the laborers are so very few to take advantage of that spiritual harvest.  Will you pray specifically today for someone you know (or don’t know) to discovered his calling to do God’s work?

Working through some pamphlets and other materials donated by Dr. Will Barker, I came across this little tract, which may be of interest. It is a reprint of an article that first appeared in THE PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL, on 30 January 1963.  Irrespective of the calendar date, this remains very much in the news these days:

ACADEMIC FREEDOM
Examining the idea that teachers are above the rules
ordinary mortals go by—

by G. Aiken Taylor, Ph.D.

The issue of “academic freedom” is rapidly becoming a major one. In some denominations there is no greater. A poll of 30 Baptist editors—for instance—placed the dismissal of Dr. Ralph Elliott from Midwestern Baptist Seminary, and the appointment of a special committee by the 1962 Southern Baptist Convention to re-study its statement of faith, as the two top news stories of 1962. Both stories had to do with the issue of academic freedom.

Dr. Elliott was dismissed from the seminary on account of his book, The Message of Genesis, which allegedly treats Biblical history lightly. His dismissal was hailed as a victory by conservative forces in the never-ending struggle between liberal and conservative elements which is going on in all Churches today.

Unfortunately, the outcome of the incident is not yet clear. Although the action against Dr. Elliott was supported by most state conventions we heard from, the liberals—mostly the academic community in this case—have shown no intention of letting it go at that. While the conservatives rest on their oars, confident in victory, the campaign to discredit them gradually increases in vigor and will probably win out in the end.

Conservatives are notoriously like the hare in the fable of the tortoise and the hare. They get excited but tend to relax again just as easily. The liberals, on the other hand, patiently keep up their subtle pressures until the resistance is overcome.

Latest development in the Elliott case is a paper signed by 37 religious professors in eight Southern Baptist colleges, condemning the seminary for “sacrificing” its “integrity in Biblical scholarship” and “denying” the “seminary’s freedom to interpret Scripture under the authority of Christ in Scripture” (which usually means, “the right to teach students to mistrust people who take the Bible to mean what it says.”)

We can predict the outcome of this controversy with a fair degree of assurance. Dr. Elliott will be reinstated—or elevated to something better—the book will be brought out by another publisher and will become an approved text in schools and colleges. The whole Baptist denomination, which supported his dismissal, but which ran out of steam as soon as he had left the seminary, will stand by helplessly wringing its collective hands.

A   SECULAR   EXAMPLE

Down in Florida another example of controversy over academic freedom has been unfolding, this time in the world of secular education. The whole state has been in an uproar over something which developed at the University of South Florida, in Tampa, where the atmosphere in some classes was alleged to have attained almost incredible depths of depravity and irreverence. One professor was dismissed. A legislative investigation of the whole state university system was held, resulting in some new statements of policy by the Board of Control. But after the dust had settled the professor was reinstated and business has continued pretty much as usual in Florida.

In the world of religion the issue of academic freedom appears as “freedom of conscience” or “freedom to interpret the Scriptures according to conscience.” The intensity of concern which some feel is reflected in that “message” recently issued by the Division of Higher Education of the Presbyterian Church US wherein it was urged that “the whole enterprise of higher education should be free from social, political, ecclesiastical and economic reprisals against academic freedom.”

The issue also rears its head in such controversies as that one which attended the Fifth World Order Study Conference of the National Council of Churches with its famous recommendation that Red China be admitted to the United Nations (“The Conference certainly had a right to speak its mind to the Churches”); and the Winston-Salem General Assembly hassle over the Layman’s Bible Commentary (“Writers have a right to follow the leading of responsible scholarship”).

RESTRICTIONS   APPLY   TO   ALL

What about it? The governor of Florida, at the height of the controversy in that state, offered some informal remarks at a news conference which constitute a sort of classic answer to the labored quibbles of those liberals who really want license to subvert when they demand “freedom.” Said the governor:

“Academic freedom is, of course, a part of freedom. It doesn’t rise to any higher levels or sink to any lower depths than other elements of freedom. It is like freedom of the press—it is bound by certain limitations. It’s necessary—and with it go certain privileges and certain responsibilities . . . (there is) a distinction between academic freedom and academic license . . . Obviously, unless each man is to be a law unto himself, there must be someone to say what the law is relative to that man; or somebody, or some means . . .

“I am concerned, on the one hand, that we do nothing to limit a proper exercise of academic freedom. On the other hand, I am equally concerned that we do nothing to restrict the power of the people to express themselves in all areas of government. And there is no area excluded.

“The people have a right to restrict the governor — they do so. They have a right to restrict the courts—I think—historically they have done so. And I think they have a right to restrict the Legislature, and they do so. And therefore I don’t want to see us get ourselves in a situation where we set one group aside and say: ‘But you are a law unto yourselves.’ I don’t think it is enough to say: ‘Well, we are gentlemen and we are patriots and we are intellectuals, and therefore we do not need to be restrained at all,’ because in an ordered society there must be restraints on everyone, or else there is no law and if there is no law there is nothing to protect academic freedom or any other freedom. . .” The governor was speaking about the “right” of professors in a state university to teach atheism and to bring open obscenity and pornography into their classes. His remarks apply equally well to the “right” of professors of Bible and religion to teach anything they please about Bible and religion.

NO LIMITS TO ‘FREEDOM’?

We know one professor of Bible in a Presbyterian college who interprets the “freedom to interpret Scripture according to conscience” to mean that he is free to teach his students that the Bible is an utterly relative book, that even the Ten Commandments have no lasting validity. This professor caused a great uproar in a US synod last year. Then the uproar died down and he is still doing business at the same stand. But does “academic freedom” give him the right to teach in a Presbyterian institution that the Bible is not to be considered a final authority even in matters of religion?

In the case of Dr. Elliott our Baptist brethren have been concerned that professors in their institutions shall teach accepted Baptist interpretations of the Bible. Has the denomination the right to expect this?

May a man accept ordination in a Baptist church and then proceed to teach and practice Infant Baptism? Has he the right to accept a teaching position in a Baptist seminary and teach his students that without the episcopate and apostolic succession there can be no true Church?

What if a theologian in a Methodist institution tried to inculcate his students in Double Predestination? Or a Presbyterian professor began advocating prayers on behalf of the dead? Would such departures from denominational doctrine be right?

What of the Presbyterian who vows that he accepts the Confession of Faith, then manages to make it appear ridiculous every time he mentions it?

What of the teacher who denies the Virgin Birth or the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ? Has he the right in the name of academic freedom?

In other words, at what point does academic “freedom” cross the line of propriety and become irresponsible license? And who is to determine that point? The teacher himself?

It is quite possible that Presbyterian Church courts—presbytery, synod and General Assembly—have been hypnotized by the ecclesiastical eggheads waving that club of academic freedom. If so, one or two considerations may help bring things back into proper focus:

FREE TO SEARCH, BUT NOT TO CORRUPT

For one thing, a distinction should be made between the freedom to inquire and the freedom to teach. The human spirit may certainly roam freely in its search for truth but that freedom to roam is not to be equated with any alleged right on the part of one spirit to drag another spirit along with it on an excursion into error.

A science professor invites his students to enter the laboratory and by means of experiments find out for themselves what is true in the fields of physics, chemistry and biology. And when the student curiously begins to mix certain chemicals to see what will happen he is exercising a very necessary “freedom” to inquire and discover.

But the teacher who stands by encouraging this “freedom” on the part of his students has no right to tell them that if they mix chemicals “A” and “B” something predictable will happen—if he doesn’t really know what will happen by mixing chemicals “A” and “B”.

In like manner, the teacher of Bible or of religion may certainly encourage his students to pursue after truth with an unfettered spirit. But it can be said on the highest possible authority that no teacher of Bible or of religion has the slightest freedom to teach uncertain conclusions for truth.

Obviously, then, the question prior to that of academic freedom is the oldest of them all : What is truth?

If it be accepted as an axiom that one may not deliberately inculcate error or false conclusions—not even in the name of academic freedom—then it becomes important to determine how one arrives at the truth.

The freedom every spirit has to search for himself means that every spirit may determine what is true for himself, if he wishes. But every other man also has the right to determine what is true for himself. Does this mean that there will be as many different varieties of truth as there are men? Possibly—if every man is the sole judge of what is true.

But an infinite variety of opinions as to the truth of things would lead only to social chaos. Consequently men persuade each other to accept specific definitions of truth and they band themselves together on the basis of their agreement upon the truth.

This principle applies to religion.

Moreover the Christian religion begins by affirming that this truth has not simply been determined by some men and agreed upon by others, it is from God. This is where revelation comes in. And the Scriptures. And confessions of faith. And confessional bodies that hold to specific confessions of faith.

Christian people band themselves together on the basis of their agreement as to the nature of the truth of God. Confessional Churches, especially, are founded upon specific statements of faith upon which their members are bound to agree. Within the areas of agreement other areas of freedom may be agreed upon. But the very nature of the confessional Church means that the whole Church agrees to the limits both of the restrictions and of the freedoms. There is no such thing as being (honestly) a member of a confessional Church and believing as one pleases. One may try to influence changes in the bases of agreement but one may not conscientiously violate them. That is what Church vows are for.

Any member of a confessional Church who does not subscribe to the agreement as to the nature of truth upon which the Church is established, or who teaches others to have disrespect for the Church’s Confession—as is done in some Presbyterian circles—is a person with little honor: in the words of the Scripture, worse than an infidel.

[Reprinted from THE PRESBYTERIAN JOURNAL, January  30, 1963.]

I find E.H. Gillett to be an engaging writer. Copies of his History of the Presbyterian Church are almost impossible to find, but it is at least available in digital form on archive.org. Browsing a bit further in this volume today, I came across the following account of a series of revivals that took place in North Carolina in 1802. 

Presbyterians don’t generally know what to do with such accounts. We like to keep our hands at our sides. Still, I think there is a place in our theology for reformation and revival, to admit there are exceptional times of harvest, when God’s people are particularly conscious of sin and turn from it, and when the Lord brings in great harvests of souls. 

In the preceding pages, the author has described three previous occasions of revival that took place in the first three months of 1802. The author opens this account with these striking words: “There had been already–subsequent to the close of the war–two marked seasons of revival in this region. The first began in Iredell county; the second commenced at a period when the prospects of religion were exceedingly dark, and when immorality and vice had come in like a flood.” Also noteworthy is how, in each of the first three accounts, he enumerates the number of Presbyterian pastors who were present on each occasion, numbering from six to fourteen, along with a few Baptist and Methodist ministers.

Now he comes to this last account of the revival in North Carolina:

The fourth general meeting was appointed on Friday, March 27, and was held at New Providence Church, under the charge of Mr. Wallis, in Mecklenburg county, about twelve miles southeast of Charlotte, and somewhat more than seventy miles north of Camden. The encampment was on a beautiful mount, easy of ascent from every direction, and more than half surrounded by a little crystal stream, which afforded water sufficient for the people and horses. It was clothed with a thick growth of giant oaks, with very little undergrowth. By three o’clock in the afternoon it was swept clear of timber, the tents were pitched, the fuel was gathered, and thousands, with their covered wagons and stretched canvas arranged in regular lines of encampment, covered the summit.

The services then commenced. A holy fervor glowed on the faces of the ministers, and a grave solemnity rested on the countenances of the people. A loud and lofty song of praise,—like “the sound of many waters,”—swelled by the united voices of the great assembly, and waking the echoes of the neighboring hills, rose to heaven. Prayer was then offered; and as the words of the text, “This is the house of God, this is the gate of heaven,” were uttered, it seemed but the instinctive expression of the feelings of every heart.

During the evening, and throughout the greater part of the night, there were exercises of singing, prayer, and exhortation in the several tents. The novelty of the scene, the fervor of devotion, and the depth of feeling so affected the multitude that few closed their eyes in sleep to the dawn of day. Before the services commenced on Saturday morning, three persons were struck down. At the close of the forenoon sermons several more were similarly affected; and the number continued to increase until the close of the meetings. Seventeen ministers were present, and about five hundred communicants participated in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, which was administered in the midst of the camp without noise or disturbance. At the same time preaching was going forward at three different stations. At the close of the services on Monday, continuing as they did till midnight, there were about one hundred persons prostrate on the ground, the greater part of whom were shouting aloud, and many of them in the most earnest manner entreating for mercy. While Dr. Hall was at prayer, about forty fell at the same instant. It was estimated that the whole assemblage amounted to at least five thousand persons. How large a number were “stricken” could not be ascertained. Besides those affected at the preaching-stations, many were taken in their tents, many more in their wagons, and a great many in the woods while at prayer or on their return to their homes.

Still other meetings were held; but their general features were substantially the same with those already described. The scenes they presented were pronounced “truly august and solemn,” especially in the night-season. When the fires were lighted up, the whole camp was illuminated, and revealed the canvas tents, the overhanging boughs of the trees left for shelter, and the eager listening groups, while the air was laden with solemn sounds which seemed more impressive amid the strangeness of the scene. Lofty songs of praise, pathetic prayers, thrilling appeals, stirring exhortations, groans or sighs of keen mental anguish, loud cries for mercy, or rapturous shouts of “glory” and thanksgiving from those who had found relief, were heard from every quarter of the encampment, and yet “with as little confusion and disturbance as the people of a city pursue their various occupations in the busy scenes of life.”  Every object, every utterance, seemed to conspire to deepen the solemnity. All that might interfere to distract attention was shrouded in darkness. The devout spirit seemed to realize the immediate presence of Jehovah, the presence of Him whose temple is all space, and beneath its dome of stars, with fellow-worshippers around him, bowed with reverence and awe appropriate to a “house not made with hands.”

The impression made upon those who had been drawn thither by curiosity was one which they could not shake off. It was almost impossible for them to sneer at what they witnessed. Those who came to mock often “remained to pray.” The most hardened cases were the very ones whose “exercises” were the most marked. In some instances not more than one in five, in others not more than one in ten, of those who were supposed to have been converted, were in the least physically affected. But where a person had been noted for his opposition or his incredulity, he was one of the most probable candidates for the “exercises.”

Words to Live By:
Revival depends upon God’s people coming to grips with their sin, repenting and turning from their wicked ways, humbling themselves and earnestly seeking the Lord. Then He will bless. It may not be in a way such as that described above. But He will bless, and His people will prosper spiritually.

For Further Study:
An old work well worth reading is John Preston’s set of six sermons on 2 Chronicles 7:14, titled The Golden Sceptre. You can find it on the web, here.

E. H. Gillett’s History of the Presbyterian Church was published in two volumes, available
here [vol. 1] and here [vol. 2]

“To God’s Glory” : A Practical Study of a Doctrine of the Westminster Standards.
by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

THE SUBJECT : Church Discipline

THE BIBLE VERSES TO READ : Acts 2:41-47; Rom. 15:14; Gal. 6:1; I Cor. 5:1; I Thess. 5:14; I Tim. 5:20; Heb. 3:12-13; James 5:19-20; Matt. 5:23-24; 18:15-17.

REFERENCE TO THE STANDARDS : Confession, chap. XXX; Larger Catechism, Q. 63.

The Presbyterian and Reformed system has always held that the three marks of a true church are the proclamation of the Word, the correct administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of discipline. And yet in so many churches there seems to be a strange lack of discipline. Biblical discipline is sadly missing.

Note the terminology used above. Biblical discipline. Possibly this is why there is a lack of discipline. Whenever members of the church today think of discipline, they immediately think of punishment and want nothing to do with it. But discipline, Biblical discipline, is much more than punishment.

An excellent definition of church discipline is given by Johannes G. Vos :

“The exercise of the authority which Christ has committed to His Church for reclaiming members who fall into scandalous sin, and for guarding the purity of the Church by excluding those who cannot be brought to repentance.”

To help us in our consideration of church discipline, let us note two key words in the above definition : “reclaiming” and “purity.” Both of these words are so central to church discipline. These must always be involved. Discipline must be concerned about the purity of the church and discipline must be educative.

A basic principle regarding the work and worship of the church is that the Word of God is our only rule of faith and practice. Therefore, when we speak of church discipline we must be involved in both doctrine and life. The thinking and the doing of the believer must be consistent with the Word of God.

This can be seen in such passages as Acts 20 as Paul gives his charge to the elders. The elders are to exercise supervisory and disciplinary care toward the members of the church. Paul did not expect to do it all by himself. Each believer should really be involved in being concerned with the purity of the church and the reclaiming of those who have gone astray.

Let us see if we can establish some basic principles regarding discipline so that we might be faithful in our following God’s Word.

First, discipline is necessary. Too many churches today ignore discipline. The truth of God’s Word must be reflected in the church. The Bridegroom is jealous for the Bride He has purchased with His own blood. Therefore, God has established that discipline is necessary in the church. It can be a powerful source for good in the church as well as in the family.

God has made it plain in His Word that there should be discipline and even how it is to be carried out. As we read the messages to the seven churches in Revelation and as we read such passages as Matthew 5:23-24 and 18:15-17 we can see how disagreements are to be handled. If such passages were followed immediately it would not be necessary for the more serious aspects of discipline to take place. 

Second, discipline must be motivated by concern for, and care of, the erring believer. If we have concern for our fellow believer there can be no attitudes of hate, or anger, or vengeance, or we will not be prompted by pride. Rather, our concern will show itself in love by the help of the Holy Spirit. If love is missing, discipline will not be educative.

Third, discipline should always be carried on within the framework of Ephesians 5:21. Submission one to another is a necessary part of correct discipline. This means that communication is important. As we are willing to submit one to another there will be a willingness to listen and to examine our own hearts regarding the matter involved.

Fourth, there should always be preventive discipline in action. That is, we should be careful regarding our acceptance of members, our calling of Pastors, our selection of church officers, and our attitudes toward each other. This will help to keep the purity of the church.

God’s Word teaches us that it is a responsibility of the church to exercise discipline. If the church is to be concerned over the spiritual state of its members, if the church members are to be shepherded and guarded, a certain amount of discipline must take place. Discipline is an integral part of church government. 

May we not ignore discipline. May we practice it because it is Biblical, all to the glory of God.

Problems in Life Usually Have a Long History

Edwin H. Rian’s “Unbelief in the PCUSA–Is It Recent?”