Holy Spirit

You are currently browsing articles tagged Holy Spirit.

June 9: “Errors and True Doctrines” (1837)

9 June, 2014 in June 2014 by Wayne Sparkman | No comments

Unlike immediately prior years, the General Assembly of 1837 was controlled by the Old School wing of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Taking advantage of their numbers, they took the action of removing from the denomination the Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, in New York, and the Western Reserve Synod in Ohio. The primary complaint of the Old School Presbyterians was the teaching of a modified Calvinism, labeled “Taylorism.” And with the excision of these four Synods, they hoped to remove the Taylor doctrine from the Church. Old School Presbyterians had also come to oppose the 1801 Plan of Union, a cooperative arrangement with Congregationalists. Here too, the removal of New School votes from the Assembly made it that much easier to repeal the Plan of Union.

Sixteen charges of theological error were leveled at the New School men by the Assembly of 1837. And no sooner were those charges laid on the table, than the New School responded in prompt reply with the document initially known as Errors and True Doctrines. Later that same summer, in subsequent conference, the New School men issued a revised version of this text under the name of the Auburn Declaration. With this document, the New School men sought to affirm their orthodoxy. Or as one historian summarized it,

“The Declaration thus adopted became, not indeed a creed, but an authoritative explanation of the interpretation given to the Westminster Symbols by the leading minds in the New School Church, as organized in 1838. It was in 1868 indorsed by the General Assembly (O. S.) as containing ‘all the fundamentals of the Calvinistic Creed,’ and this indorsement was one among the most effectual steps in bringing about the reunion of the two Churches in 1870. The document is rather a disavowal of imputed error than an exposition of revealed truth, and must be understood from the anthropological and soteriological controversies of that period of division now happily gone by.”

ERRORS AND TRUE DOCTRINE.
[submitted as a protest to the General Assembly, June 8, 1837]

First Error.—“That God would have prevented the existence of sin in our world, but was not able, without destroying the moral agency of man; or, that for aught that appears in the Bible to the contrary, sin is incidental to any wise moral system.”

True Doctrine.—God permitted the introduction of sin, not because he was unable to prevent it, consistently with the moral freedom of his creatures, but for wise and benevolent reasons which he has not revealed.

Second Error.—“That election to eternal life is founded on a foresight of faith and obedience.”

True Doctrine.—Election to eternal life is not founded on a foresight of faith and obedience, but is a sovereign act of God’s mercy, whereby, according to the counsel of his own will, He has chosen some to salvation; “yet so as thereby neither is violence offered to the will of the Creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established;” nor does this gracious purpose ever take effect independently of faith and a holy life.

Third Error.—“That we have no more to do with the first sin of Adam than with the sins of any other parent.”

True Doctrine.—By a divine constitution, Adam was so the head and representative of the race, that, as a consequence of his transgression, all mankind become morally corrupt, and liable to death, temporal and eternal.

Fourth Error.—“That infants come into the world as free from moral defilement as was Adam when he was created.”

True Doctrine.—Adam was created in the image of God, endowed with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. Infants come into the world, not only destitute of these, but with a nature inclined to evil and only evil.

Fifth Error.—“That infants sustain the same relation to the moral government of God, in this world, as brute animals, and that their sufferings and death are to be accounted for on the some principles as those of brutes, and not by any means to be considered as penal.”

True Doctrine.—Brute animals sustain no such relation to the moral government of God as does the human family. Infants are a part of the human family,and their sufferings and death are to be accounted for, on the ground of their being involved in the general moral ruin of the race induced by the apostacy.

Sixth Error.—“That there is no other original sin than the fact, that all the posterity of Adam, though by nature innocent, will always begin to sin when they begin to exercise moral agency; that original sin does not include a sinful bias of the human mind, and a just exposure to penal suffering; and that there is no evidence in Scripture, that infants in order to salvation, do need redemption by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.”

True Doctrine.—Original sin is a natural bias to evil, resulting from the first apostacy, leading invariably and certainly to actual transgression. And all infants, as well as adults, in order to be saved, need redemption by the blood of Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost.

Seventh Error.—“That the doctrine of imputation, whether of the guilt of Adam’s sin, or of the righteousness of Christ, has no foundation in the Word of God, and is both unjust and absurd.”

True Doctrine.—The sin of Adam is not imputed to his posterity in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts, and demerit; but by reason of the sin of Adam, in his peculiar relation, the race are treated as if they had sinned. Nor is the righteousness of Christ imputed to his people in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities, acts, and merit; but by reason of his righteousness, in his peculiar relation, they are treated as if they were righteous.

Eighth Error.—“That the sufferings and death of Christ were not truly vicarious and penal, but symbolical, governmental, and instructive only.”

True Doctrine.—The sufferings and death of Christ were not symbolical, governmental, and instructive only, but were truly vicarious, i.e., a substitute for the punishment due to transgressors. And while Christ did not suffer the literal penalty of the law, involving remorse of conscience and the pains of hell, he did offer a sacrifice which infinite wisdom saw to be a full equivalent. And by virtue of this atonement, overtures of mercy are sincerely made to the race, and salvation secured to all who believe.

Ninth Error.—“That the impenitent sinner is by nature, and independently of the renewing influence or almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, in full possession of all the ability necessary to a full compliance with all the commandments of God.”

True Doctrine.—While sinners have all the faculties necessary to a perfect moral agency and a just accountability, such is their love of sin and opposition to God and his law, that, independently of the renewing influence or almighty energy of the Holy Spirit, they never will comply with the commands of God.

Tenth Error.—“That Christ does not intercede for the elect until after their regeneration.”

True Doctrine.—The intercession of Christ for the elect is previous as well as subsequent to their regeneration, as appears from the following Scripture, viz. “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word.”

Eleventh Error.—“That saving faith is not an effect of the operations of the Holy Spirit, but a mere rational belief of the truth or assent to the word of God.”

True Doctrine.—Saving faith is an intelligent and cordial assent to the testimony of God concerning his Son, implying reliance on Christ alone for pardon and eternal life; and in all cases it is an effect of the special operations of the Holy Spirit.

Twelfth Error.—“That regeneration is the act of the sinner himself, and that it consists in change of his governing purpose, which he himself must produce, and which is the result, not of any direct influence of the Holy Spirit on the heart, but chiefly of a persuasive exhibition of the truth, analogous to the influence which one man exerts over the mind of another; or that regeneration is not an instantaneous act, but a progressive work.”

True Doctrine.—Regeneration is a radical change of heart, produced by the special operations of the Holy Spirit, determining the sinner to that which is good, and is in all cases instantaneous.

Thirteenth Error.—“That God has done all that he can do for the salvation of all men, and that man himself must do the rest.”

True Doctrine.—While repentance for sin and faith in Christ are indispensable to salvation, all who are saved are indebted from first to last to the grace and Spirit of God. And the reason that God does not save all, is not that he wants the power to do it, but that in his wisdom he does not see fit to exert that power further than he actually does.

Fourteenth Error.—“That God cannot exert such influence on the minds of men, as shall make it certain that they will choose and act in a particular manner, without impairing their moral agency.”

True Doctrine.—While the liberty of the will is not impaired, nor the established connexion betwixt means and end broken by any action of God on the mind, he can influence it according to his pleasure, and does effectually determine it to good in all cases of true conversion.

Fifteenth Error.—“That the righteousness of Christ is not the sole ground of the sinner’s acceptance with God; and that in no sense does the righteousness of Christ become ours.”

True Doctrine.—All believers are justified, not on the ground of personal merit, but solely on the ground of the obedience and death, or, in other words, the righteousness of Christ. And while that righteousness does not become theirs, in the sense of a literal transfer of personal qualities and merit; yet, from respect to it, God can and does treat them as if they were righteous.

Sixteenth Error.—“That the reason why some differ from others in regard to their reception of the Gospel is, that they make themselves to differ

True Doctrine.—While all such as reject the Gospel of Christ do it, not by coercion but freely—and all who embrace it do it, not by coercion but freely—the reason why some differ from others is, that God has made them to differ.

Philadelphia, June 8th, 1837.

[signed by]:
George Duftield, E. W, Gilbert, Thomas Brown, Bliss lbirnan, N. S. S. Beman, E. Cheever, E. Seymour, George Painter, F. W. Graves, Obadiah Woodruff, N. G. Clark, Robert Stuart, Nahum Gould, Absalom Peters, Alexander Campbell.

The New School protest having been lodged, the official reply was brief and dismissive:

ANSWER

Mr. Plumer offered the following resolutions, which were adopted, viz.

1, Resolved, That the paper just offered, purporting to be a protest, though it contains several important mis-statements of facts, and much extraneous matter, be admitted to record without answer; the lateness of the period at which it is offered rendering it inconvenient to answer it, and the character of the paper rendering another disposition of it proper and necessary.’

2„ Resolved, That duly certified copies of this paper be sent to the respective Presbyteries to which the signers of the protest belong, calling their attention to the developments of theological views contained in it, and enjoining on them to inquire into the soundness of the faith of those who have ventured to make so strange avowals as some of these are.

Dr. Beman moved, that the attention of all the Presbyteries be directed to this protest.

The motion was lost.

Tags: , , , , ,

May 24: The Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod

24 May, 2014 in May 2014 by archivist | No comments

The Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Synod [1833-1965]

In the preceding chapter we have seen the rise of Reformed Presbyterianism in Scotland in the seventeenth century together with its exportation to America in the eighteenth. By the first years of the nineteenth century the Reformed Presbyterian Church was firmly planted in American soil. The reconstitution of the Reformed Presbytery in 1798 under the leadership of James McKinney was followed by an outburst of optimistic energy in the Church. „Important additions were soon after made to the ministry, and the Church entered on a career of vigorous labour, crowned by a large measure of progress.‟1 As a result of this energy, the official judicial testimony of the American Reformed Presbyterian Church was published in 1807 under the title Reformation Principles Exhibited. Two years later—on May 24, 1809—„All the ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, being convened, with ruling Elders delegated from different sessions, did unanimously agree to constitute a Synod.‟ The official name was to be the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in America.

The Reformed Presbyterian Church in America was well aware of her unique circumstances and opportunities. “God has, in his Providence, presented the human family in this country with a new experiment. The Church, unheeded by the civil powers, is suffered to rise or fall by her own exer- tions.‟4 So wrote Alexander McLeod in Reformation Princi- ples Exhibited. However, what would be the outcome of these unique circumstances? How would the Church respond to these unique opportunities? The Reformed Presbyterian Church looked upon the dawn of the nineteenth century with extreme optimism. In- deed, D. M. Carson entitles this chapter in the history of the Church “The New Optimism.‟5 This general attitude is well expressed in the words of James McKinney, uttered in 1797:

“The joint triumphs, of enlightened reason, and true religion, must soon become glorious.‟ Mankind would soon come to recognize the rights of God, and the millennium would be triumphantly ushered in. According to McLeod the Fall of the papal antichrist is fast approaching, and the time is near when the Lord will pour forth his Holy Spirit and the king- doms of this world will become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ (Rev. 11:15).7 This optimistic spirit was accompanied by the substantial growth of the Church. In 1798 there were two ministers, a few scattered congregations, and some 1000 communicant members. By 1832 there were 36 ministers, 60 organized congregations, and some 5,000 members. The sources of this growth were Covenant children, Reformed Presbyterians from Ireland and Scotland, and converts from other denomi- nations.8 These converts were looked upon as those who had become dissatisfied with the use of human compositions in singing God‟s praises, the relaxation of church discipline, the prevalence of Hopkinsian and other doctrinal errors, and „the carnal, worldly spirit of professors, in the churches which they left.‟9 At the time of the appearance of the second edition of Reformation Principles Exhibited in 1824, it could be exclaimed: „Congregations are springing up in the desert, and the wilderness is becoming a fruitful field.‟10 The organization of the Church kept pace with this growth. The number of presbyteries increased. A representa- tive General Synod, to meet every two years, was established in 1823; and by 1832 the General Synod had constituted the Eastern and Western Subordinate Synods for yearly meetings. The Church was zealous for the education of her minis- ters, and in 1807 drew up a constitution for a theological seminary. This constitution is interesting, not only because it reveals the Church‟s conception of the nature of the ministry and of theological education, but also because it reveals her conception of what constitutes proper qualifications for the ministry. These are in order of importance: first, piety or practical godliness; second, good sense or talents commensurate with the calling; and third, a good theological education. As fund raisers for the seminary put it: “The Millennium is not to be introduced by ignorant enthusiasm. There must be an able ministry.‟ The Church was also conscious of her responsibility in the areas of discipline, evangelism, and doctrine. The Rev. David Graham was deposed from the ministry and excommunicated from the Church for misconduct in 1812. In 1822 Covenanters in New York City founded the American Evangelical Tract Society to disseminate tracts in support of the principles of the Reformation. The ministers of the Synod were on the whole prolific authors. For a small number of men they produced a good deal of published material, much of which concerns doctrinal subjects. They were particularly concerned to defend traditional Calvinism against its modern substitutes. For instance, William Gibson wrote Calvinism vs. Hopkinsianism (1803), and Gilbert McMaster published a Defence of Some Fundamental Doctrines of Christianity (1815)—including the Trinity, the Person of Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the Depravity of Man, and the limited extent of the Atonement. McMaster inquires: What then? Shall men, in things of religion, be in a state of per- petual hostility? Shall the empire of the Prince of Peace never be united? Must each contend for his dogma? The Church of God is indeed lamentably distracted, and in that distraction all parties have a guilty hand. But can the malady be cured by an unprincipled abandonment of fundamental doctrines, merely to obtain a momentary repose from the pains of contest? Such repose would be that of death, to the interests of vital godliness.

It was in this spirit that Alexander McLeod wrote The Life and Power of True Godliness (1816).16 The position of the ministers of the Church on the matter of political dissent did not preclude their speaking out on political and social issues. McLeod puts it tersely in the first of his series of sermons in defense of the American cause in the War of 1812: „Ministers have the right of discussing from the pulpit those political questions which affect Christian morals.‟ The Church took a particularly strong stand on the slavery question, expressed in McLeod‟s Negro Slavery Unjustifiable (1804); and as early as 1802 we read in the Minutes of the Reformed Presbytery: „It was enacted that no slave- holder should be allowed the communion of the Church.‟

As might be expected, one of the chief topics for discussion was the matter of the application of Christian principles to existing governments. It was chiefly differences in this area that led to the lamentable Disruption of 1833.

Disruption and Recovery In 1833 the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America experienced a division which up to the present has been permanent. The majority adhering to the General Synod became known as the New Light General Synod, the minor- ity as simply the Old Light Synod. The Disruption of 1833 has its origins in the early years of the nineteenth century. To understand this momentous dispute in the Church it is necessary to mention some of the developments which led up to it.

Hutchinson, George P., The History Behind the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod. pp. 65-70.

Tags: , , ,

May 5: Historical Context of the Auburn Affirmation

5 May, 2014 in May 2014 by archivist | No comments

The document known as the Auburn Affirmation was presented to the public in January of 1924, bearing the signatures of 150 Presbyterian pastors and elders. But just four months later, on May 5, 1924, that list of signatures had grown to 1274 names, a significant percentage of the pastors and ruling elders of the Church as that point in time. How many more might have signed had it been convenient, and how many more were complacent or apathetic about the matter? In sum, the Auburn Affirmation attempted to reduce orthodox Christian doctrine to mere opinion and theory. As much as all of this was a shame upon the denomination, perhaps the greater shame was the almost entire lack of response from theologically conservative Presbyterians. They were caught flat-footed and unawares. Of those that did take notice, most thought that the Auburn Affirmation was just a flash in the pan and would come to nothing. Remarkably, substantive discussion of and opposition to the Affirmation was not voiced until almost a decade later.

Sound doctrine had been under concerted attack since at least the 1890’s. The situation was accelerated somewhat by the 1903 revision of the Westminster Confession of Faith, and even more so by the 1906 inclusion of most of the anti-Calvinistic Cumberland Presbyterian denomination. Thus by 1910, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. felt constrained to pronounce certain doctrines “essential.”

This Doctrinal Deliverance, as it was called, was produced by the Committee on Bills and Overtures in response to a situation arising out of the New York Presbytery in which three candidates for the ministry were ordained even though they refused to affirm the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ. [Here it is worth noting that J. Gresham Machen spent much of his career defending this particular doctrine.] While the 1910 PCUSA General Assembly dismissed the complaint brought against the three men, it did instruct its Committee on Bills and Overtures to draft a statement which all future candidates would have to affirm in order to be ordained. The Committee’s completed Doctrinal Deliverance set out five articles of faith (reproduced below) which were judged “essential and necessary.”

That was in 1910. Such was the state of the Church that the General Assemblies of both 1916 and 1923 were compelled to reaffirm the Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910. Thus it can be seen that the 1924 Auburn Affirmation was written almost entirely in opposition to this Doctrinal Deliverance. Sadly, by 1927 the General Assembly overturned the Deliverance with the conclusion that the Assembly cannot mandate certain doctrines as “essential and necessary.” In so doing, the 1927 Assembly effectively loosed the Church from its moorings.

The Doctrinal Deliverance of 1910 [reiterated in 1916 and 1923]:

1. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards, that the Holy Spirit did so inspire, guide and move the writers of the Holy Scriptures as to keep them from error. Our Confession says [Chapter I, Section 10]: “The Supreme Judge, by whom all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scriptures.

2. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards, that our Lord Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. The Shorter Catechism states, Question 22: “Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin.”

3. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards, that Christ offered up “himself a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice, and to reconcile us to God.” The Scripture saith Christ “once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the Spirit.” [Cf. the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q. 25]

4. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God and our Standards, concerning our Lord Jesus, that “on the third day he arose form the dead, with the same body in which he suffered; with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of his Father, making intercession.” [Cf. the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter VIII, Section 4]

5. It is an essential doctrine of the Word of God as the supreme Standard of our faith, that the Lord Jesus showed his power and love by working mighty miracles. This working was not contrary to nature, but superior to it. “Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people” [Matthew 9:35]. These great wonders were signs of the divine power of our Lord, making changes in the order of nature. They were equally examples, to his Church, of charity and good-will toward all mankind.
These five articles of faith are essential and necessary. Others are equally so…

Resolved, That, reaffirming the advice of the Adopting Act of 1729, all the Presbyteries within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any candidate for the ministry into the exercise of the sacred function, unless he declares his agreement in opinion with all the essential and necessary articles of the Confession.
[Minutes of the General Assembly, 1910, pages 272 – 273.]

Words to Live By:
As the Rev. Bill Iverson is fond of saying, “God has no grand-children.” By that Rev. Iverson means that the work of evangelism must be done afresh in every generation. The Church can never rest from that good work. And we must constantly bear in mind that salvation belongs to the Lord. Our preaching and our witnessing must be done in complete reliance upon the Lord to bring about conviction of sin and conversion to saving faith. If the Church strays, it is because the people have strayed.  

Tags: , , ,

April 27: F. A. Schaeffer: “We Don’t Have Forever”

27 April, 2014 in April 2014 by davidtmyers | No comments

“We Don’t Have Forever,” by Dr. Francis A. Schaeffer: 

The following transcript was originally printed in the PCA Messenger in 1980:

(Francis A. Schaeffer, founder of the L’Abri Fellowship, author of 21 books, and principal in the “How Should We Then Live?” and “Whatever Happened to the Human Race?” film-seminar series, was the featured speaker at the 1980 “Consultation on Presbyterian Alternatives” sponsored by the Presbyterian Church in America. His counsel, excerpted here from the full transcript of his Pittsburgh messages, was heard by participants from several Presbyterian communions.)

Two biblical principles must be practiced simultaneously, at each step of the way, if we are to be really Bible-believing Christians.  One is the principle of the practice of the purity of the visible church.  The other is the principle of an observable love among all true Christians.

Those of us who left the old Presbyterian Church USA (the “Northern” Church) 44 years ago made mistakes which marked the movement for years to come.  The second principle often was not practiced. In particular we often failed to manifest an observable love for the fellow believers who stayed in that denomination when others of us left.

Things were said which are very difficult to forget even more than 40 years later.  The periodicals of those who left tended to spend more time attacking the real Christians who stayed in the old denomination than in dealing with the liberals.  Those who came out at times refused to pray with those who had not come out.  Many who left totally broke off all forms of fellowship with true brothers in Christ who did not come out.

What was destroyed was Christ’s command to love each other.  And what was left was often a turning inward, a self-righteousness, a hardness, and, too often, a feeling that withdrawal had made those who came out so right that anything they did could be excused.

Further, having learned these bad habits, they later treated each other badly when the new groups had minor differences among themselves.

We cannot stress both of the principles simultaneously in the flesh.  Sometimes we stress purity without love.  Or we can stress love without purity.  In order to stress both simultaneously we must look moment to moment to the work of Christ and to the work of the Holy Spirit.  Without this, a stress on purity becomes hard, proud, and legalistic.  Without this, a stress on love becomes compromise. Spirituality begins to have real meaning in our lives as we begin to exhibit (and the emphasis here is on exhibit, not just talk) simultaneously the holiness of God and the love of God.  Without our exhibition of both, our marvelous God and Lord is not set forth.  Rather, a caricature is set forth and He is dishonored.

We paid a terrible price for what happened in those early days.  As some of you now come out of your denominations, please do learn from our mistakes.  Each pastor, each congregation must be led by the Holy Spirit.  If some disappoint you, do not turn bitter.

One of the joys of my life occurred at the Lausanne Congress (the 1974 International Congress on World Evangelization in Lausanne, Switzerland). Some men from the newly formed Presbyterian Church in America asked me to attend a meeting they and others had called there. When I arrived I found that it was made up of Southern men who had just left the Presbyterian Church US to form the PCA and some Christians who were still in the PCUS. Someone from each side spoke. Both said to me that the meeting was possible because of my voice and especially my little book, The Church Before the Watching World (published by InterVarsity Press). I must say I could have wept, and perhaps I did. It is possible for us to do better than we would naturally do. It is not possible if we ignore the fleshly dangers and fail to look to our living Lord for his strength and grace.

Those of us who left our old denomination in the Thirties had another great problem, as I see it. It was confusion over where to place the basic chasm which marks off who we are. Does that chasm mark us as those who are building Bible-believing churches and that on this side of the chasm we hold the distinctives of being Presbyterian and Reformed? Or is the primary chasm that we are Presbyterian and Reformed and that we are divided from all who are not? The answer makes a great deal of difference.

When we go to a town to start a church, are we going there with the primary motivation to build a church which is loyal to Presbyterians and the Reformed faith, or are we going there to build a church which will preach the Gospel which historic, Bible-believing Christianity holds, and then on this side of that chasm teach that which we believe is true to the Bible in regard to church government and doctrine? The difference makes a difference to our mentality, to our motivation, and to the breadth of our outreach. I must say, to me one view is catholic, biblical and gives good promise of success; the other is introverted and self-limiting, yes, and sectarian. I spoke of a good promise of success. I mean on two levels: First in church growth and a healthy outlook among those we reach; second, in providing leadership in the whole church of Christ.

We alone do not face this problem of putting the chasm at the wrong place, of course. A too zealous mentality on the Lutheran view of the sacraments is the same. A too sectarian mentality in regard to the mode of baptism is another. The zeal of the Plymouth Brethren for an unpaid ministry is often the same. No, it is not just our problem. But it is our problem. To put the chasm in the wrong place is to fail to fulfill our calling, and I am convinced that when we do so we displease our Lord.

Those who remain in the old-line churches have their own set of problems. In contrast to the problem of hardness to which those who withdraw are prone, those who remain are likely to develop a general latitudinarianism. One who accepts ecclesiastical latitudinarianism easily steps into a cooperative latitudinarianism which can become a doctrinal latitudinarianism and especially a letdown on a clear view of Scripture.

This is what happened in certain segments of what I would call the evangelical establishment. Out of the evangelical latitudinarianism of the Thirties and Forties grew the letdown in regard to the Scripture in certain areas of the evangelical structure in the Seventies. Large sections of evangelicalism today put all they can into acting as though it makes no real difference as to whether we hold the historic view of Scripture or the existential view. The existential methodology says that the Bible is authoritative when it teaches “religious” things but not when it touches that which is historic, scientific, or such things as the male/female relationship.

Not all who have stayed in the liberal denominations have done this, by any means, but it is hard to escape.  I don’t see how those who have chosen to stay in (no matter what occurs) can escape a latitudinarian mentality which will struggle to paper over the differences on Scripture in order to keep an external veneer of unity.  That veneer in fact obscures a real lack of unity on the crucial point of Scripture.  And when the doctrinal latitudinarianism sets in we can be sure from all of church history and from observation in our own period of church history that in just a generation or two the line between evangelical and liberal will be lost.

This is already observable in that the liberals largely have shifted to the existential methodology and have expressed great approval that the “moderate evangelicals” have done so.  The trend will surely continue.  Unless we see the new liberalism with its existential methodology as a whole, and reject it as a whole, we will, to the extent to which we tolerate it, be confused in our thinking.  Failure to reject it will also involve us in the general relativism of our day and compromising in our actions.

The second major problem of those who stay in the liberally controlled denominations is the natural tendency to constantly move back the line at which the final stand will be taken.  For example, can you imagine Clarence Macartney, Donald Grey Barnhouse or T. Roland Phillips being in a denomination in which the baffle line was the ordination of women?  Can you imagine these great evangelical preachers of the Twenties and Thirties (who stayed in the Presbyterian Church USA) now being in a denomination which refuses to ordain a young man whose only fault was that while he said he would not preach against the ordination of women yet he would not say he had changed his mind that it was unbiblical? Can you imagine that these leaders of the conservative cause in an earlier era would have considered it a victory to have stalled the ordination of practicing homosexuals and practicing lesbians?  What do you think Macartney, Barnhouse, and Phillips would have said about these recent developments?  Such a situation in their denomination would never have been in their minds as in the realm of conceivable.

The line does move back.  In what presbytery of the Northern Presbyterian Church can you bring an ordained man under biblical discipline for holding false views of doctrine and expect him to be disciplined?

Beware of false victories.  Even if a conservative man is elected moderator of the general assembly (as Macartney was in 1924), it would amount to absolutely nothing.  Despite the jubilation among conservatives at Macartney’s election, the bureaucracy simply rolled on, and not too many years later conservative leader J. Gresham Machen could be unfrocked.  Nelson Bell was elected moderator of the Southern Church later (in 1972), and nothing changed.  The power centers of the bureaucracy and the liberally-controlled seminaries were unmoved.

There are always those who say, “don’t break up our ranks … wait a while longer … wait for this … wait for that.” It is always wait.  Never act. But 40 years is a long time to wait when things are always and consistently getting worse.  And (with my present health problem) I tell you soberly, we do not have forever to take that courageous and costly stand for Christ that we sometimes talk about. We do not have forever for that. We hear many coaxing words, but watch for the power structure to strike out when it is threatened. If the liberals’ power is really in danger or if they fear the loss of property, watch out!

What of the future? We live in a day that is fast-moving.  The United States is moving at great speed toward totally humanistic orientation in society and state.  Do you think this will leave our own little projects, our own church, and our own lives untouched?  Don’t be silly. The warnings are on every side. When a San Francisco Orthodox Presbyterian congregation can be dragged into court for breaking the law of discrimination because it dismissed an avowed, practicing homosexual as an organist, can we be so blind as to not hear all the warning bells go off?  When by a ruling of a federal court the will of Congress can be overturned concerning the limitation on the willful killing of unborn children, should not the warning bells go off as to the kind of pressures ahead of us?

Who supports these things?  The liberal denominations do, publicly, formally, and financially.  And it puts into a vise those of us who stand for biblical morality, let alone doctrine.  Beyond the denominations, it is their councils of churches that support not only these things but also terrorist groups. They give moral support and money.  Should we support this by our denominational affiliation? We may seem isolated from the results for a time but that is only because we are too blind to see.

I don’t think we have a lot of time.  The hour is very late, but I don’t think it is too late in this country. This is not a day of retreat and despair.  In America it is still possible to turn things around.  But we don’t have forever.

Reprinted from the PCA Messenger
© 1980, Christian Education Committee of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Tags: , , ,

March 16: Rev. Daniel Iverson on the Message to Laodicea

16 March, 2014 in March 2014 by Wayne Sparkman | No comments

iversondaniel01This past Thursday, we presented a short post on the history of the Shenandoah Presbyterian Church, Miami, Florida, founded by organizing pastor Daniel Iverson, Sr.  Today, for our Lord’s Day sermon, we present Rev. Iverson’s teaching on the Book of Revelation, chapter 3, verses 14-22—The Message to Laodicea. This message was part of a larger series on the Book of Revelation, delivered before the Shenandoah congregation in the late winter and Spring of 1951.

 

The Message to Laodicea [Rev. 3:14-22]

Today we come to the last of the seven messages which make up the second division of this book – “The things which are” – the description, we believe, of the course of the entire church age.

We have said before that something of the spirit of all will be in each, but it is particularly true that the characteristics of the last three will be found running concurrently to the end» So we shall find the cold formalism of Sardis hand in hand with the warm loving devotion of Philadelphia 5 but increasingly also the state shown by the description of Laodicea, which depicts the state to which the loss of the first love of Ephesus has brought the chur­ch of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Laodicea is called by our Lord, the “luke warm” church – it shows a state of falling away as warned of by the Apostles. They tell us that these conditions will be the mark of the last days. Especially does the Apostle Paul link it with the coming of Christ in 2 Thess. 2. “Falling away”; “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God”; “having a form of godliness but denying the power”; a general carelessness and indifference. Hardly a page of the epistles goes by without the warning underscoring of the Holy Spirit.

With our passage today we see how our Lord sums the whole thing up. The name Laodicea means “Peoples Rights” or “Rule of the People”; it has become very familiar to us in these days. Peoples rights and rule, the most refined form is democracy, its ugliest mob rule, but both spring from one idea, each man thinking his way is the best way and insisting on his rights. That was the spirit in the time of the judges in Old Testament days when God said twice over, “Each man did that which was right in his own eyes” and then, between the two references records instances of the utter anarchy and confusion it brought about in the political, home and religious life of the nation. Think of a Family where every member insists on his own way; carry that out to world dimensions and what do we have – the world of today.

The basic principle of the church of Jesus Christ is that she submits herself to the rule of her glorious Head and follows the leading of the Holy Spirit. Alas, we all know how much of the spirit of “peoples rights” has invaded the church and quenched the working of the Spirit. Just ask ourselves and answer honestly,

“Is the church run to please God or the people in it?” We are not concerned now with the world, except to say the church should in­fluence it, instead of which we find the same spirit of the last days which marks the world, tragically dominating the church. It was so with the Jewish people in the days of Christ; the feasts of the Lord had become “feasts of the Jews” and the Temple of God had become “Your house left unto you desolate”. When “peoples rights” are opposed to “God’s rights”, God allows them their will for the time being, but it is a terrible state, for it cannot but end in disaster and Judgment. So “peoples rights and rule” in the church have made it “luke warm”. What is “luke warm”, which is a state neither cold nor hot, so that it will not (to use a popular form of advertising) ‘’Injure the most sensitive”, shall we say religi­ous feelings. You get that in a state where people are catered to.

Laodicea pictures the popular idea of Christianity of soft music and lights and sweet soothing words – so that no definite • reactions are roused either way. No one is stimulated to action, no one is offended. The Lord said He would have preferred them one way or the other. It is not a state of honest ignorance * but one of willing and willful ignorance. And why? Because they don’t want their beautiful ideas clouded by the stark realities and practical demands of God’s will. It is easier to practice good will in other peoples lives than God’s will in our own. People who hear and know the truth but shut themselves off from it. Not open, honest anta­gonism, but cloud banks, pretty pink and white ones of utter com­placency and indifference. It is of such the Lord says “I am about to spue thee out of My Mouth”.

He introduces Himself by a threefold statement r “These things saith”

(a)      “The Amen”, God’s last word, no matter what men say. The world has failed and so has the church, but He is the perfect ending, He v/ill in His own way complete God’s plan for the world.

(b)      “The Faithful and true Witness”. He bears record of what He sees and knows, of God to man or of man to God,

(c)      “The beginning of the creation of God”, He was the begin­ning of creation; by the time of this passage it has shown its ruin and He will be the beginning of a new creation, after He has brought to a conclusion the affairs of this one. Certainly there is no foundation in these messages, or anywhere else in Scripture, for the prevalent idea of a church making the world into a Utopia of light and glory and peace.

The last of the seven parables of Matt. 13 shows it as a drag net, full of fish its true, but as many if not more, of bad fish as good. Notice it is the net (the church) spoken of. We expect the sea (the world) to hold all kinds; the bad in the net are to be re­jected, cast away thrown back into their true element. So in Rev, 3sl6 the Lord says He will reject these “luke warm” ones who have so rejected Him that He is left outside the door of their hearts and gatherings. He does not mention His coming by a word to them – the way in which He will reject them is by the gathering out of His faithful and leaving the rest to their chosen state. Remember the parable of the ten virgins – as many were left as were taken. The ones who were taken were the ones who had the oil for their lamps, (symbol of the Holy Spirit) and also they went out to meet the Bridegroom. The others slumbered and slept until too late, lost in dreams.

With Verse 17, the Lord describes them at their own evaluation and then at His. He begins by “Thou sayest”. How bold and com­placent, yes, and boastful is man. The Pharisee who said “I, I, I”. “I thank thee God that I am not as other men. I pay tithes of all I possess, etc.” and God says “He prayed with himself”. Do you think God is interested in your carefully drawn picture of self?

There was the rich fool of Luke 12 who said “What shall I do, for I have no room to store my goods. I will pull down my barns and build greater. I will say to my soul”, etc. etc. But God said “Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee”. Then what?

So this Laodicean spirit drugged with self opinion, while living on borrowed time says: “I am rich and increased with goods” but the saddest thing is that they say “I have need of nothing”. Perhaps those words stress their need as no others could, what can penetrate such utter self content and satisfaction.

Then the Lord gives the clinical report on true values “poor, wretched, naked and blind”. How self love hates such a statement 5 “thou knowest not”, indeed doesn’t want to know, such things. Then the counsel “Buy of He” – oh, we know salvation is free and cannot be bought, but in a sense the Laodicean spirit has to pay the price of laying aside all it felt so valuable. I suppose the thought here is more “exchange your gold for Mine, your rich clothing for My pure garment0, exchange the mirage for reality, the decaying for the un­fading. Then lastly, perhaps, their deepest need “Anoint thine eyes with eye salve that thou mayest see”. If ever the poets’ words were true –

“Oh wad the gift, the gods would gie us,
to see ourselves as others see us”

– they are today in this Laodicean age. The church rich, preening herself on her place, power and possessions, ignorant of real values, not seeing herself as she is before God. We need the Hand of the One who anointed the eyes of the blind to touch all our eyes, so that we may see many things.

The last thing, the last word to the professing church is a plea, a lament, to the blind hearts who can’t, who won’t, see. Yes, truly there are none so blind as those who won’t see. What are our values – the kind of Verso 18 are given to us by the processes of Verse 19. Then He speaks a last gracious invitation – this Lord who in Chapter 2 was standing in His peoples midst, now is outside the door, asking them to allow Him to come in and bless them. All the rich simplicity of the full gospel is seen in these words. Even though they cannot see, maybe some will hear His Voice and open the door – then, marvel of grace, He will come in.

Tags: , , ,

« Older entries § Newer entries »