The 1980 Testimony of the RPCNA : A Biblical

The 1980 Testimony of the R.P.C.N.A.1: A Biblical Critique
Brian Schwertley
Introduction
In light of the fact that doctrinal attainments are cumulative over time and different
historical circumstances require different applications, the R.P.C.N.A. adopted “The Testimony
of the R.P.C.N.A. in 1980” in order to better apply “Scripture Truth to the contemporary
situation” (Testimony, p.4). This document is crucial in identifying the current theological state
of the R.P.C.N.A., in that any doctrinal statements that are different or contradictory from the
Westminster Standards essentially replace or nullify the doctrinal statements of the original
Confession of Faith (adopted 1648). On page 3 of the R.P.C.N.A. Testimony we read, “All of
these documents, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Testimony of the Reformed
Presbyterian Church [1980], and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms are of equal authority in the
Church, except that where noted, earlier documents are to be interpreted by the later ones.” The
word “interpreted” does not simply mean that a teaching is clarified or applied to a modern
situation unknown to the Westminster divines, for in at least two places the new Testimony
explicitly rejects the teaching of the original Confession of Faith (on pages 60, 67). We will see
that in both cases the original Confession is biblically correct while the Testimony is in error.
Preliminary Comments and Observations
Before our analysis of the Testimony [1980] we want to make a number of preliminary
comments.
First, we heartily agree with the vast majority of the statements in this testimony. Much
of what is said is simply good solid Reformed theology applied in opposition to modern errors
(e.g., the framework hypothesis, the Charismatic movement, dispensationalism, modernism, etc.).
It is wise to note the truth in opposition to these modern errors. The church is not to remain
stagnant but must fight against heretics, errorists, and mockers by asserting biblical truth against
such dangers. A historical testimony must be cumulative and apply biblical truths to new errors.
For this effort the R.P.C.N.A. should be commended.
Second, there are some things in the new Testimony that are fine as far as they go but
could be better stated against errors. For example, in Chapter 4: Of Creation on page 4 we read,
“The account of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 is history, not mythology. Heb. 11:3.” There are also
statements against theistic evolution and continuing creation (pp. 4, 5). These are important and
excellent statements. But, given all the unbiblical nonsense taught about the early chapters of
Genesis today, it would have been wise to note that the days of creation are literal days, not ages,
1
Adopted August 1980 by the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America.
1
epochs or millions of years. Perhaps the reason the standard orthodox exegetical observation was
not made is the fact (at least the last time I checked) that Geneva College (the official College of
the R.P.C.N.A.) teaches a number of unbiblical theories regarding Genesis 1 and 2. While I am
aware that the view that the six days were natural days is mocked today as fundamentalist, over
simplistic nonsense, the inspired author’s express declaration that each day had its “morning and
evening” would have certainly been interpreted by the original audience as a normal day. (In
addition, a normal day is implied by God Himself in the reason given for a seventh day rest in
the Fourth Commandment [cf. Ex. 20:11].)
Does the Testimony Endorse Some Forms of Socialism?
Third, there are statements that are sloppy and easily liable to misinterpretation. Note, for
example, the following statements on economics on page 17 under the doctrine of creation: “We
reject that form of capitalism which holds that men possess absolute property rights and that the
state has no right to protect the weak and restrain evil in economic affairs. We reject that form of
socialism which denies that right to own property. We warn against the concentration of
economic power in the hands of the state, as it tends to deprive men of the due reward of their
labor. Deut. 17:14-20; 1 Sam. 8:10-18.” Since the second statement is obviously more
problematic we will consider it first.
The phrase “that form of socialism” grammatically implies that there are some acceptable
forms of socialism. Biblically, there are no lawful or acceptable forms of socialism period.
Socialism is a theory which Advocates the elimination of private property or the means of
production by individuals so the ownership and control of capital and the means of production is
placed in “the hands of the community as a whole” which really means state ownership and
control. Socialism in all its forms is an assault on private property and the God given rights that
pertain to it.
I am aware that, practically speaking, there are degrees of socialism in the world today.
One could even speak of a continuum of socialism where private property (in a sense) is
maintained. The welfare statism in the United States, for example, allows much greater freedom
than Cuba or Venezuela, but the state still seeks a certain amount of control through taxation and
regulation. We have an interventionist system where state coercion is used to confiscate money
from industries and individuals so that others deemed worthy can be given that money by the
state.
If we allow the word “socialist” to be applied in a “mild” manner that is inclusive of the
modern welfare state, can we justify the R.P.C.N.A. testimony’s implication that there are
acceptable forms of socialism today? The answer is: certainly not! This answer is easy to prove
from a number of biblical perspectives. (1) There is not a shred of biblical evidence that God has
exempted the state or civil magistrate from the eighth commandment (“You shall not steal,” Ex.
20:15, Deut. 5:19; cf. Eph. 4:28). When Ahab the king wanted Naboth’s vineyard he was not
permitted by God to confiscate his property or tax him to the point where he would be forced to
2
sell. He could only ask him if he was willing to sell it (1 Kgs. 21:7-16). While the state is
permitted to collect taxes for lawful purposes, it does not have the God given authority to tax for
any purpose. Keep in mind, the power to tax without biblical limits is the power to control and
destroy. (2) While the Bible teaches that the civil magistrate has the authority to punish sins that
are crimes in the sphere of economics (e.g., theft, fraud, false weights and measures, false
advertising, cheating workers out of agreed upon wages, working conditions that endanger life
and limb, etc.), it does not have the authority to steal from the rich (i.e. use coercion) to give
money to the poor and needy.2 The biblical responsibility of helping the needy is placed firmly in
2
The modern welfare state in America, which one could call a milder form of socialism, has its roots deep in
modernist theology and thinking. This observation has been documented by Marvin Olasky: “Adults were expected
to work and children were expected to read, Williams noted, for the 1950’s decade was before ‘we stopped holding
people accountable for their behavior and began assigning blame to society.’ Those who started to deviate received
neighborly pressure to get back into line.
But in the 1960s, attitudes changed. Suddenly it became better to accept welfare than to take in laundry.
Michael Harrington, author of the popular book The Other America, complained that some who were out of work
for a long time ‘would take low-paying jobs; and; accept humiliation rather than go on the public dole.’ Until the
1960s, the public dole was humiliation, but thereafter young men were told that shining shoes was demeaning, and
that accepting government subsidy meant a person; could at least keep his dignity.’ This, then, was the key change of
the 1960s—not so much new benefit programs as a change in consciousness concerning established ones, with
government officials approving and even Advocating not only larger payouts but a war on shame. Underlying the
change were the theologically liberal tendencies within social work (and related fields) that had been criticized by
Niebuhr a generation earlier, and which were becoming more evident than ever.
Typical of the new theology was a monograph from Columbia University’s New York School of Social
Work that called government welfare, rather than any spiritual commitment, the ‘ultimate instrument of social
conscience in the modern world.’ Authors Elizabeth Wickenden and Winifred Bell—the former soon to become
chief lobbyist for the National Social Welfare Assembly—buttressed their faith with several carefully chosen texts
from scriptures old and modern, the Bible and the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Their
report opposed any emphasis on personal responsibility for the economic problems: there should be no penalty for
able-bodied and mentally competent individuals who, for whatever reason, were unable ‘to hold a job, to spend their
money sensibly...or otherwise rise to the challenges of social responsibility.’ Personality flaws, the report suggested,
had social origins, and in any event ‘social justice’ required an end to scrutiny of behavior, since ‘the origin of
economic or social need is far less important than the fact of its existence.’
Wickenden and Bell’s clenched-teeth attack on opposition to entitlements—a desire to restrict subsidy was
not just wrong but ‘patently absurd and self-defeating’—showed a new orthodoxy at work. They saw no valid
reason for categorizing individuals as ‘deserving’ or ‘not deserving’: ‘Arguments against the perpetuation of a
categorical system of assistance entitlement are compelling on all counts.’ They chastised attempts to restrict support
to groups such as widows and orphans: ‘Assistance has become less a ‘right’ to which certain groups have earned
special entitlement than an obligation on society.’ And they opposed regulations designed to involve relatives in
providing support, arguing that any such rules ‘force responsibility beyond the current economic and cultural
pattern...and assistance standards.’ Vestiges of past practice were to be fought as the drive for universal ‘economic
and social security’ continued” (Marvin Olasky, The Tragedy of American Compassion [Washington, DC: Regnery
Gateway, 1992], 169-170).
I am aware that John Calvin and some of the Puritans made statements about aid to the poor by the civil
government. Regarding these statements we need to note the following: (1) What they envisioned was radically
different than what is occurring today. (2) The important thing to keep in mind was not simply what they believed
but what was the biblical exegesis behind such statements. To accept what they said simply because they said it is no
different than Romanism. (3) State programs explicitly contradict Scriptural laws dealing with the deserving poor
which teach: (a) Gleaning on private property with the permission of the land owner. Gleaning is hard work (Lev.
19:10; Deut. 24:21; cf. the book of Ruth). (b) Temporary voluntary servitude for up to six years, which is also hard
work. (c) Private charity which usually came from relatives. (d) Charity from voluntary tithes which are to be
distributed by church officers. There is not a shred of evidence for state-run or taxpayer-financed welfare programs
in the entire Bible.
3
the hands of families and private individuals (1 Tim. 5:2-4, 14; 2 Thess. 3:10). It is always based
on voluntary tithes and private charity, not state coercion and intervention in the economy. In the
United States, orphans, widows and the deserving poor were cared for primarily by churches and
private Christian charities until the twentieth century. Not only are state welfare programs based
on coercion and theft instead of Christian love and concern, but they harm the people they
supposedly are helping by removing Christian ethics and responsibility from determining how
aid is distributed. Socialism or welfare statism in all its forms (historically) has been far more
concerned with developing a permanent, loyal political underclass, than in really lifting people
out of poverty. When liberal bureaucrats subsidize the undeserving poor (i.e. those unwilling to
work hard and submit to Christian ethical norms), they reward ungodly behavior and keep people
in poverty. Paul says, “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat” (2 Thess. 3:10).
While the R.P.C.N.A. Testimony’s statement on socialism appears careful and moderate,
in reality it is syncretistic and dangerous. The biblical Christian who believes in the sufficiency
and authority of Scripture refuses to go beyond the limited boundaries established by the Word of
God. The biblical doctrine of the sovereignty of God and the law of God which stands above the
state are clearly hostile to socialism and statism in any form. The biblical Christian declares that
the source of freedom and blessing is not statist planning or “scientific” socialism but rather
salvation in Christ and liberty under the law as a rule for life. Socialism in every form leads to a
Molech state and statist slavery. Christians must oppose socialism in every form. The politics of
state planning, humanistic antinomian “compassion” and economic coercion is the politics of
slavery. We would plead with our R.P.C.N.A. brothers to change their statement on economics to:
“We reject every form of socialism because it is rooted in theft and the divinization of the state.”3
3
“An excellent way of getting at the essential difference between capitalism and socialism is a distinction, drawn
most recently by economist Walter Williams, between the two ways in which anything may be exchanged. Williams
called them the peaceful means of exchange and the violent means of exchange.
The peaceful means of exchange may be summed up in the phrase, ‘If you do something good for me, then
I’ll do something good for you.’ When capitalism is understood correctly, it epitomizes the peaceful means of
exchange. The reason people enter market exchanges is because they believe the exchange is good for them. They
take advantage of an opportunity to obtain something they want more in exchange for something they value less.
Capitalism then should be understood as a voluntary system of relationships that utilizes the peaceful means of
exchange.
But exchange can also take place by means of force and violence. In this violent means of exchange, the
basic rule of thumb is: ‘Unless you do something good for me, I’ll do something bad to you.’ This turns out to be the
controlling principle of socialism. Socialism means far more than centralized control of the economic process. It
entails the introduction of coercion into economic exchange in order to facilitate the goals of the elite who function
as the central planners. One of the great ironies of Christian socialism is that its proponents in effect demand that the
state get out its weapons and force people to fulfill the demands of Christian love. Even if we fail to notice any other
contrast between capitalism and socialism, we already have a major difference to relate to the Biblical ethic. One
system stresses voluntary and peaceful exchange, while the other depends on coercion and violence.
Some Christian Socialists object to the way I have set this up. They profess contempt for the more coercive
forms of state-socialism on exhibit in Communist countries. They would like us to believe that a more humane, noncoercive kind of socialism is possible. They would like us to believe that there is a form of socialism not yet tried
anywhere on earth, where the central ideas are cooperation and community and where coercion and dictatorship are
precluded. Either these people are confused or they have a secret that they want kept from the rest of us. It is
interesting to note how little information they provide about the workings of this more Utopian kind of socialism.
They ignore the fact that however humane and voluntary their socialism is supposed to become after it has been put
4
Another apparent serious problem with the R.P.C.N.A. Testimony’s statement on
economics is found in the assertion: “We warn against the concentration of economic power in
the hands of the state...” (p. 17). Why is there a warning against a concentration of economic
power when the state has no economic power? Civil governments do not produce anything. They
are not to be engaged in economic enterprise at all except perhaps designing, building, and
paying for weapons systems, defensive bases, and so on. If by this the testimony means that civil
governments must not get carried away by over taxing people for the sake of the “military
industrial complex,” then it could be restated more clearly. This may be partially in mind since
both proof texts cited (Deut. 17:14-20; 1 Sam 8:10-18) deal with taxation and servitude for the
military and the king’s own benefit.
The Testimony’s Statement on Capitalism
The R.P.C.N.A.’s statement on capitalism is vague and can be interpreted in a few
different ways: “We reject that form of capitalism which holds that men possess absolute
property rights and that the state has no right to protect the weak and restrain evil in economic
affairs” (p. 17). We can heartily agree that all property belongs to God (see Ps. 24:1; 42:2,7-8;
115:16) and thus there is no such thing as “absolute property rights.” The Bible teaches free
market capitalism under biblical law and thus men cannot indiscriminately pollute, kill all animal
life, commit murder and so on, on their property. God is the creator, owner, and ruler of all
things. He has absolute ownership of all things and man is merely a steward of the land under
Him. But, when a state taxes property or a man’s inheritance it assumes to itself the role of God.
If the R.P.C.N.A. Testimony’s statement that it is wrong to say “that the state has no right
to protect the weak” means that the state must enforce biblical laws that protect the weak from
fraud, oppression, denial of wages earned, theft, property infringement, violence, etc., then we
heartily agree. But since the statement about protecting the weak comes in a sentence about
into effect, it will take massive amounts of coercion and theft to get it started. Voluntary socialism is a contradiction
in terms. As Edmund Opitz points out, ‘Such practices as voluntarily pooling goods, sharing the common tasks of a
community, working with one’s hands...do not constitute Socialism.’ What these Christian Socialists have done is
form a Utopian ideal of a voluntary community they call socialism. They are unable to explain how their system will
work without free markets, and they simply ignore the massive amounts of coercion that will be required to get their
system started. Whatever else socialism is, it means a centralized control of the economy made possible by the use
of force. Socialism epitomizes the violent means of exchange.” (Ronald H. Nash, Poverty and Wealth: The Christian
Debate Over Capitalism [Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1986], 64-65).
The wickedness of socialism is well described by R.J. Rushdoony in his analysis of charity: “Consider the
implications of charity. The goods, clothing, and money given to objects of charity are never created out of nothing;
they are the possession of the donor. Charity therefore involves the giving of property by one person to another, and
false charity therefore becomes the robbing of the godly in order to further an evil person or cause. False charity is a
contribution to evil, a self-conscious espousal of evil; it is to that extent deliberately anti-Christ and anti-God. When
false charity is coercive charity, as indeed so much of it is today, it constitutes a similarly anti-Christian stand on the
part of the government that requires it, and, it thereby indicates that the godly and the provident must be robbed in
order to provide for the wicked. we have here, therefore, a novel kind of Robin Hood, a Robin Hood who robs the
godly and the provident in order to provide for the wicked and the anti-social. Not only does such a philosophy rebel
against God and His righteousness, but it seeks to obscure the distinction between God and Satan, between good and
evil” (Politics of Guilt and Pity [Fairfax, VA: Thoburn Press, 1970, 78] 70).
5
property rights, we are left to wonder if the testimony here is implying that the state can step in
to help the poor through coercive methods that are not found in and indeed are contrary to the
law of God. What does the testimony say about minimum wage laws (i.e. the wage is not
determined freely by the market or by free men making free decisions, but by state coercion); or
the property tax to support state schools; or the confiscation of lawfully earned money to be
given to others by state bureaucrats? If the writers of the R.P.C.N.A. Testimony had these kinds
of things in mind, then the testimony is asserting that the civil magistrate is lord. That he can act
as the god and owner of all things within his realm. This is a species of idolatry and in principle
is syncretism with Molech worship. It sounds very hip and compassionate but it is cruel (Prov.
12:10) and antinomian. Rushdoony was correct when he said,
The beginning of a Biblical doctrine of property is to see God’s absolute property rights over us,
and over our income, vocation, family, and total life. What belongs to God cannot be
surrendered to another. Our sin begins with a claim that we are our own property, and it ends
with our enslavement by a tyrant state.
The first step to freedom is to acknowledge that God is the Lord, and that beside Him there is
none else (Isa. 45:22). It means confessing and declaring, “O LORD our God, other lords beside
thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name” (Isa.
26:13). It is only the name and sovereignty of God that we will celebrate, obey, and
acknowledge as our absolute Lord. Only then can we begin to recapture our freedom from
humanistic tyrants and to restore God’s property rights and our own freedom under God. There
is no other way...The government of all God’s property, ourselves and the earth, must be by
God’s law....The issue in property is that, no man, but God is the Lord.4
If the R.P.C.N.A. testimony is not siding with welfare statism, they should make
themselves clear, especially in light of their implicit acceptance of some forms of socialism.
The R.P.C.N.A. Testimony on Evangelism
We encounter further sloppiness in a section under effectual calling that deals with
evangelism. On page 30, we read, “Evangelism is the proclamation of Jesus Christ as Savior and
Lord as he is offered in the gospel. Christ laid the responsibility upon the whole church to make
this proclamation. The task is not restricted to ordained officers. Each member is to take his
share of responsibility according to the gifts God has given him. (Acts 2:36; Mt. 28:18-20; John
20:21; 1 Cor. 12:4-11; Eph. 4:7-16).” While the practice of individual Christians passing out
tracts, inviting people to church and Bible studies and witnessing to friends, relatives,
acquaintances and total strangers is a good and wonderful thing, the Confession of Faith and the
Scriptures cited do not teach what the R.P.C.N.A. testimony claims they teach.
4
Rousas John Rushdoony, Law and Society: Volume II of the Institutes of Biblical Law (Vallecito, CA: Ross House
Books, 1982, 86), 538, 544.
6
In the section of the Confession that deals with effectual calling, the focus is not on
personal witnessing but rather the ministry of the Word (i.e. the preaching of the Word of God by
an ordained ministry; see section 3 and 4. Moreover the proof texts cited in the testimony focus
our attention not on personal witnessing by individuals, but on the preaching of the Word by
ordained ministers. If we look at each verse cited this point will become clear.
In Matthew 28:18-20 we read, “And Jesus came and spoke to them [the eleven disciples,
v. 16] saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make
disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with
you always, even to the end of the age.’ Amen.” In Mark’s account we have, “Go ye into all the
world, and preach the gospel to every creature [i.e. rational creature]” (16:15). These passages
have immediate reference to the apostles. Ministers can be missionaries but often spend their
ministries in one place and do not travel abroad. Those who apply this verse to evangelism by all
believers in history err for a number of reasons. First, the passage speaks of discipleship not bare
evangelism. Evangelism should lead to discipleship but is only a starting point not a lifelong
process. Second, this command is limited to an ordained preaching ministry in that: (1) only
ministers can baptize or administer the sacraments; (2) discipleship involves teaching the whole
counsel of God (Mt. 28:20); (3) preaching (kerusso) or proclaiming the gospel publicly is only to
be done by ordained preachers (Mk. 16:15; cf 2 Tim. 4:2). The idea that this passage refers to
evangelism in general is essentially a modern evangelical interpretation.
In Acts 2:36, the apostle Peter is preaching the gospel. This supports our interpretation of
the Great Commission and does not support the Testimony’s viewpoint. In John 20:21 Jesus
commands His apostles to go, not believers in general. This interpretation is proved by verse 23
which refers to the application of church discipline. The use of 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 also
contradicts the testimony in that it speaks of diversity of gifts. Only some have the word of
wisdom (v. 8) or the gift of prophecy (v. 10). Ephesians 4:7-16 is similar to Corinthians. Verse 11
reads, “And He Himself [i.e. the glorified Mediator] gave some [not all] to be apostles, some
prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers.” While the Bible sets forth the
woman at the well as someone who pointed people to Jesus (Jn. 4:28-30) and our Lord taught us
to be a salt and light to the heathen culture around us (Mt. 5:13-16) the R.P.C.N.A.’s proof
texting is clearly in error.
Corporate Responsibility
Under the section of the Confession entitled “Of Repentance unto Life,” the R.P.C.N.A.
Testimony has an excellent statement on corporate responsibility for corporate sins: “Every man
bears a degree of responsibility for the sins of the group in which he participates. When sins are
corporate, repentance and confession should be corporate as well as individual. Josh. 7:11; Dan
9:3-20; 2 Chron. 15:8-15; Neh. 9:1-38; Rev. 2:5, 16; Mt. 6:12.” This excellent statement raises
the question: Why does the R.P.C.N.A. obstinately refuse to repent of corporate sins? They are
7
guilty of either not obeying their own testimony or they do not think some things that the Bible
defines as sinful are really sinful. Let us look briefly at the obvious, public, well-known
corporate offenses.
Take, for example, the widespread acceptance of and celebration of Christmas. In the
R.P.C.N.A., a minister who does not have a Christmas public worship service but only celebrates
this pagan/popish day in the home is regarded as a conservative. I would estimate that about 96%
of ministers in the R.P.C.N.A. celebrate Christmas. Now, I am aware that these men have
sophisticated excuses for their behavior (e.g., “for us it is only a secular family day”). But to
celebrate such a day not only violates the regulative principle (Gen. 4:3-5; Ex. 20:4-5; Lev. 10:12; Deut. 12:28-32; 1 Ch. 15:13-15; Jer. 7:31; 19:5; 1 Sam. 13:13; 2 Ch. 11:14-15; Mt. 151-9;
28:20; Jn 4:19-24; Col. 2:20-23; etc.) and the biblical teaching that we’re to obliterate and
forever banish the monuments of idolatry (Gen. 35:1-4, 2 Kgs. 10:27, 23; Jer. 10:2-3; Deut.
12:31), but also teaches a lie in that Jesus was almost certainly not born in December. It also
explicitly violates the Westminster Standards and our covenant obligations. Keep in mind that the
R.P.C.N.A. Covenant of 1871 states explicitly that they still recognize “the obligations laid upon
us by the Covenants of our fathers.” (This would mean the covenants and/or covenant renewals
of 1580, 1638, 1643 as well as the Auchensaugh Renovation.) Therefore, if the ministers, elders
and congregants in the R.P.C.N.A. want to do something explicitly contrary to these covenants,
they need to demonstrate from Scripture why a certain portion of their covenant is in error and
repudiate it as unscriptural. We will see that this has not occurred.)
In the Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God [1645] we read, “There is
no day commanded in the Scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is
the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, locally called holy-Days, having no warrant in the Word of
God, are not to be continued.” This is something that is part of the R.P.C.N.A.’s covenant
obligations. Unless this can be proved to be unscriptural using standard Protestant procedures of
exegesis, it is still binding on every member of the R.P. church, especially ministers and elders.
Another covenanted obligation is found in the Church of Scotland (First) Book of
Discipline (1560):
By the contrary doctrine, we understand whatsoever men, by laws, councils, or constitutions
have imposed upon the consciences of men, without the express commandment of God’s Word;
such as the vows of chastity, forswearing of marriage, binding of men and women to several
disguised apparels, to the superstitious observation of fasting days, difference of meat [food]
consciences’ sake, prayers for the dead; and keeping of holy days of certain saints commanded
by man, such as be all those that the Papists have invented, as the feasts (as they term them) of
Apostles, Martyrs, Virgins, of Christmas, Circumcision, Epiphany, Purification, and other fond
feasts of our lady. Which things, because in God's Scriptures they neither have commandment
nor assurance, we judge them utterly to be abolished from the realm; affirming farther, that the
obstinate maintainers and teachers of such abominations ought not to escape the punishment of
the Civil magistrate.
8
Another crucial binding document that is almost universally broken in the R.P.C.N.A. is
The National Covenant: or, the Confession of Faith (1580). It was subscribed by the General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1580 and renewed in 1581, 1590, and 1638. It reads,
[W]e abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kind of Papistry in
general and particular heads, even as they are now damned and confuted by the Word of God
and Kirk of Scotland. But, in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman
Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of
men;…[his] dedicating of kirks, altars, days;…
It did not occur to men such as John Knox, John Craig, James Melville, George Gillespie,
Samuel Rutherford, Alexander Henderson, Richard Cameron, and Donald Cargill that papistry
and superstition was permitted in the home as long as we say “for us the day is secular.” Were
such men wrong in disciplining people who celebrated such days?5 Were they wrong in
instructing the Christian state to make the keeping of such days a criminal offense? Does the fact
that such days are universally accepted and practiced by what are called conservative
Presbyterians today make them any less sinful?
The Reformed Presbytery (Covenanters) in 1761 passed an Act, Declaration and
Testimony6 which said,
5
That the covenanted Presbyterians of the Second Reformation believed that Christmas was a sin against God that
merited church discipline if not repented of can be seen in the Church of Scotland General Assembly’s – Act for
Censuring Observers of Yule-day, and other Superstitious days which was passed unanimously in 1645. It reads,
“The General Assembly taking to their consideration the manifold abuses, profanity, and superstitions,
committed on Yule-day [Christ-mass] and some other superstitious days following, have unanimously concluded
and hereby ordains, that whatsoever person or persons hereafter shall be found guilty in keeping of the aforesaid
superstitious days, shall be proceeded against by Kirk censures, and shall make their public repentance therefore
in the face of the congregation where the offense is committed. And that the presbyteries and provincial synods
take particular notice how ministers try and censure delinquents of this kind, within the several parishes.”
Given this strong statement we ask, would the Presbyterians of the Second Reformation ordain a man who
celebrated Christmas or serve him communion if he refused to repent and claimed that the day was merely
secular? The answer is, “They most certainly would not.” This raises a secondary question. Would the current
R.P.C.N.A. license and ordain a man who refused to serve communion to the faculty at the R.P. Seminary and the
vast majority of ministers and elders in the R.P. Church who celebrate Christmas every year? The answer is,
“They almost certainly would not.” (The R.P.C.N.A. Seminary mails out Christmas cards every year. While the
original Presbyterians were willing to suffer and die to avoid such monuments to idolatry, modern Presbyterians
voluntarily adopt them and speak evil of those who do not go along with their popish declensions.) Thus we see
that the original Covenanters and the R.P.C.N.A. are two very different churches with (at least in certain areas)
radically different covenant sanctions (one based on the Word of God and the covenant; the other based on
human tradition, pragmatism and syncretism with our pagan culture). There can be no ethical neutrality.
6
The full title reads, Act, Declaration, and Testimony, for the Whole of our Covenanted Reformation, as Attained to,
and Established in Britain and Ireland, Particularly Betwixt the Years 1638 and 1649, Inclusive. As, Also,
Against all the Steps of Defection from Said Reformation, Whether in Former or Latter Times, Since the
Overflow of that Glorious, Down to this Present Day (1761).
9
Not to insist further in enumerating particulars, the Presbytery finally testify [sic] against church
and state, for their negligence to suppress impiety, vice, and superstitious observance of holy
days, &c. The civil powers herein acting directly contrary to the nature and perverting the very
ends of the magistrates office, which is to be custos et vindex utriusque tabulae; the minister of
God, a revenger, to execute wrath on him that doeth evil. Transgressors of the first table of the
law may now sin openly with impunity; and, while the religious observation of the Sabbath is
not regarded, the superstitious observation of holy days, even in Scotland, is so much
authorized, that on some of them the most considerable courts of justice are discharged to sit.
I am not aware that this wonderful, very biblical document has ever been repudiated by the
R.P.C.N.A.. If it has been repudiated then we ask: on what Scriptural basis?
I am aware that most Presbyterians today will think that making an issue out of Christmas
or the celebration of extra biblical holy days is nitpicking, uncharitable and even absurd. But we
must make an effort to step out of the current ethical and cultural zeitgeist and be biblical and
objective about such things. The First and Second Reformation Presbyterians believed that
celebrating Christmas was a violation of the second commandment and the fourth
commandment.7 They believed so strongly about this that they were willing to risk their lives and
die to be rid of such doctrines and commandments of men. They firmly and correctly believed
that the celebrating of such days was a violation of their covenanted reformation. Therefore, if a
minister or elder celebrated such a day, he would be disciplined and removed from office (if he
refused to repent). People who continue to celebrate such days would be disciplined as well and
even prosecuted by the state. Given the teaching of Scripture, our covenant obligations and are
subordinate standards, can we (in good conscience) give communion to someone who
obstinately refuses to stop celebrating such days? In accordance with our spiritual forefathers
who were willing to die over such issues we say, “No, we cannot.” Because there can be no
ethical neutrality, those who celebrate pagan/papal holy days and arbitrarily declare them to be
secular days usually denigrate and persecute those who refuse to imbibe these human traditions.
On this issue the R.P.C.N.A. has rejected the covenanted reformation and sided with Rome and
the prelatists. We could legitimately ask, “Would John Knox, Melville, Rutherford, Gillespie or
7
Christmas is a violation of the fourth commandment in that it is the setting apart or sanctifying a day not authorized
or appointed in Scripture. Bannerman writes, “In keeping the last day of the week as a day of religious
observance, the Jews, by the very act, express their religious acknowledgment of God, who had appointed it, and
did an act of worship to Him as its author, in the character of the one Creator who made the heavens and the
earth. In keeping the first day of the week, Christians, by the very act, recognize Christ as the author of it, and do
an act of religious homage to Him as the one Redeemer, who on that day rose from the dead, and secured the
salvation of His people… And who does not see, that upon the very same principle the observance of holidays
appointed by the Church, as ordinary and stated parts of Divine worship, is an expression of religious homage to
man, who is the author of the appointment,—an unlawful acknowledgment of human or ecclesiastical authority
in an act of worship. In keeping, after religious sort, a day that has no authority but man’s, we are paying a
religious homage to that authority; we are bowing down, in the very act of our observance of the day as part of
worship, not to Christ, who did not appointed it, but to the church, which has. We are keeping the season holy,
not to God, but to man” (James Bannerman, The Church of Christ [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1960 (1869)],
1:416).
10
Henderson be welcome in the current R.P.C.N.A.? Would they cooperate with such declension
and corruption or would they remain faithful to Scripture and the covenants?” Anyone familiar
with these men knows the answer to this question.
On this issue, the R.P.C.N.A. has rejected the teaching of the Larger Catechism on the
second commandment. The catechism says that “according to each one’s place and calling [we
are responsible for] removing it [i.e. all false worship], and all monuments of idolatry” (A. 108).
This phraseology is taken from George Gillespie’s book, A Dispute against the English Popish
Ceremonies Obtruded upon the Church of Scotland (1637). Gillespie explains as well as anyone
the meaning of the Larger Catechism on this point. As Morecraft notes,
By monuments of idolatry, then, it is obvious that the Catechism, with Gillespie, is referring to:
(1) Any monument dedicated in the past to the worship of idols that might preserve the memory
of that idolatry or that might move people to return to that ancient idolatry; and (2) Those
popish ceremonies obtruded upon the [Reformed and Presbyterian] Church of Scotland by the
king of England and the Church of England, which were imitations of older rites and rituals of
the Roman Catholic Church, for which no basis can be found in the Word of God as to their
being commanded of God for us to use in His worship. This refers to such ceremonies as those
set forth in the FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH (1618) which were imposed upon the Church of
Scotland by the English king: (1) Kneeling at Communion, (2) Observing holy days such as
Christmas (which the Scottish Presbyterian saw as the idolatrous Saturnalia of the Romans
adapted to become a popish festival), Easter, and Pentecost, (3) Episcopal Confirmation; (4)
Private baptisms; and (5) Private administration of the Lord’s Supper. In fact, such ceremonies
include any rite or liturgy in worship not commanded by the Word of God.8
The Larger Catechism is not simply rejecting celebrating “Christmas” in public worship services is made
clear by noting the obligation of everyone to remove the monuments of idolatry “according to each one’s
place and calling.” This means it must be removed from homes, businesses, capitals and the whole of
8
Joseph C. Morecraft, Authentic Christianity: An Exposition of the Theology and Ethics of the Westminster Larger
Catechism (Powder Springs, GA: Minkoff Fam. Pub. and American Vision Press, 2009), 4:68-69. The Larger
Catechism also condemns “any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion…all
superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken
up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others…” (A. 109). Christmas was not instituted by God. It comes
from a false religion (heathenism and Romanism). It is a species of superstition invented by man. It is a tradition
received from the apostate Roman Catholic Church. Therefore, to celebrate it in the church or the home is a sin
or violation of the moral law of God. Those who cling to this species of idolatry with humanistic excuses and
refuse to repent are covenant breakers and should not be permitted to come to the holy Supper. (To remove all
excuses, the Catechism adds the expression “or any pretense whatsoever.” This is designed to counteract foolish
excuses such as “for us it is just a secular day.” This was the primary argument I encountered in the R.P.C.N.A..
Besides the fact that it is totally arbitrary and is a fantasy that contradicts the facts (e.g., a celebration of Christ’s
birth or the incarnation is obviously not secular), why does this supposedly secular day just happen to correspond
with December 25 every year? Why does it contain the paraphernalia of heathenism and popery? The statement,
“for us it is just a secular day” is obviously dishonest. When Christians resort to Clintonian rhetoric so they can
violate the second commandment and break their covenant obligations, they are declension becomes
entrenched.)
11
society and culture. Innovations in worship and clinging to the old monuments of idolatry lead to
ecclesiastical and political tyranny. It is sad that the R.P.C.N.A. sides with Romanists and prelatists on this
point against the Second Reformation in Scotland and their own historical covenants and past attainments.
Geneva College
There is also the issue of Geneva College—the official college of the R.P.C.N.A.. This is
the college where the children of members of the R.P.C.N.A. are supposed to be educated
according to the Christian world and life view, which according to the R.P.C.N.A.’s own
standards means the Reformed faith, in particular the Westminster Standards. This raises the
question: is Geneva College a Christian college? The answer is, sort of. Is it a truly Reformed
institution? The answer is, not really. Those who teach at this institution are not required to
subscribe to the covenants or the Westminster Standards. When I attended this college for one
whole year around 35 years ago, most of the staff were Arminian evangelical at best. The
philosophy teacher at the time who openly mocked Calvinism and told Bible majors to go to
Fuller Theological Seminary (a neo-evangelical virtually apostate school) received tenure after
joining a local R.P. church. A friend of mine (a strict Psalm singer from the OPC with a PhD and
an outstanding academic record) who applied for an open position at Geneva in his field around
14 years ago was told by those in charge of filling that position that they were not interested in
hiring someone who was Reformed. When I attended and strongly complained about the
unbiblical garbage I was being taught to those in the Bible department, two of which were R.P.
ministers, I was told that diversity was good because it prepared students for the real world. But I
attended Geneva because I wanted an explicitly Reformed and Presbyterian education. After one
year I decided to stop wasting my time and finished college at a heathen institution (Temple
University); I saved a lot of money. I reasoned it would be better to be taught by an atheist than a
heretic who perverted the Word of God. Those who are members of the R.P.C.N.A. Synod are
responsible for what is taught at Geneva College. They must decide what is more important,
making money and growth or being faithful to the Word of God. If Geneva will not be faithful to
Scripture and the Westminster Standards, then it should be sold or given to those who obey their
covenant obligations.
The position of the Westminster Standards and our covenant obligations is very clear with
respect to higher education: every teacher, teacher’s aide, administrator, staff member and so on
must subscribe to the Westminster Standards and swear to keep our covenant obligations. This
was certainly the position of the original Presbyterians who swore to uphold the covenants. This
can be seen in the act of the General Assembly of Scotland from August 5, 1640 (Session 10):
“The Assembly ordained, that if any Expectant [minister] shall refuse to subscribe the Covenant,
he shall be declared incapable of Pedagogy, teaching in a school, reading at a kirk [church],
preaching within a presbytery, and shall not have the liberty of residing within a Burgh [town],
12
University or College: and if they continue obstinate to be processed.”9 This means that a teacher
must swear to adhere to and uphold the covenanted Reformation. Such thinking is dramatically
opposed to the doctrinal pluralism and the open toleration of wicked heresies at Geneva
College.10
The Lack of Discipline
There are a number of other things that could be mentioned that are serious sins or errors
as well. One is the tendency to protect ministers who have publicly advocated serious errors.
Two ministers in good standing in the R.P.C.N.A. wrote papers explicitly rejecting the regulative
principle of worship and the position of exclusive psalmody with no musical instruments was
openly denied as well (e.g., Rev. Tim McCracken, Rev. Andrew Schep). At least one of these
ministers was brought up on charges for advocating such errors that contradict the Bible and the
R.P.C.N.A.’s subordinate standards. In the case with which I am intimately familiar, the charges
were dismissed by a commission of Presbytery based on the assertion that two witnesses did not
render charges. This ruling is patently absurd when we consider the fact that both of these men
published position papers against the biblical position that were public and received a wide
circulation. What happened to these ministers who denied what Calvin called one of the twin
pillars of the Protestant Reformation? They were told not to publicly teach their views. What this
means is that you can reject the regulative principle and the achievements of our covenanted
Reformation on worship and remain a minister in good standing in the R.P.C.N.A.. But it may be
objected, “These men will not teach their dangerous errors on worship.” But, I ask, what are they
supposed to do when they come to a passage which teaches the biblical view of worship (i.e. the
regulative principle)? Are they supposed to skip it? Moreover, if they do not teach upon it, how
can they fulfill the biblical mandate to preach the whole counsel of God? Are they to pretend
they adhere to the Scriptures and the standards? Is not pretending a lie? How could such a man
preach on that topic with conviction and fervor? He obviously could not. The sad truth is that
men who reject the Westminster Standards are protected and nurtured, and those who uphold the
covenants and standard on things like Christmas and Easter (if they do not keep their mouth shut)
are usually shunned, disliked, treated with contempt, etc.…
In a recent discussion with an R.P.C.N.A. minister, the issue was brought up about the
open toleration of serious errors in doctrine and practice within the R.P.C.N.A.. The R.P.C.N.A.
minister’s response repeatedly was to discuss how big the R.P.C.N.A. was. To paraphrase,
“Look, we are really big; we can handle having some errors here and there with no problem.”
Having errors in doctrine and practice was justified based on the denomination’s size as if it is
9
The Acts of the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, From the Year 1638 to the year 1649. Inclusive.
[1682], 94.
10
Many years ago, a young man in charge of the college newspaper printed an article critical of Roman Catholicism.
Was he praised for his biblical stance? No. He was removed from the newspaper. One wouldn’t want to upset the
religious pluralism at Geneva, for it might interfere with the making of mammon.
13
better to be big and corrupt instead of small and faithful. This is (of course) a pragmatic
argument, not a biblical argument. It assumes that allowing corruptions will not affect the body
as a whole and apparently presupposes that the whole body is not guilty for openly tolerating
defections in doctrine and practice. On this matter, the R.P.C.N.A. is not following the teaching
of its own testimony. The open toleration of sin on the corporate level can only lead to further sin
and declension and God’s covenant sanctions (e.g., I personally believe the rise of the Federal
Vision heresy in the OPC and PCA was a judgment for openly disregarding the regulative
principle of worship); but over time certain sins and errors are no longer regarded as sins and
errors. That is a terrible position to be in, for it leads to constitutional apostasy over time.
By way of analogy, I want to bring up some personal experiences I had as a salesman.
Occasionally, I would go to a house full of dog feces that reeked of excrement. Or I would have
to speak to the owners of a house full of cat urine that smelled so bad I could barely breathe. As I
dodged the large dog turds all over the floor (both young and fresh and old and crusty), I thought
to myself, “How can anyone tolerate living among such gross filth and foul stench? This (to me)
is unbearable.” On the way home (after a sale by the way), I thought to myself: as the turds
gathered and built up, the owners of that home must have grown accustomed to turds and foul
stink. In fact, they were around large steaming dog turds and old crusty brown logs so long that
to them it was normal. They did not even notice the foul stench. To them, the brown fumes of
turdville were the new normal. That is what happens when denominations tolerate sin and heresy.
That may not be how you view such sins, but you can be certain that that is how God views such
wicked things. You know that a denomination is in trouble when a gospel preacher points to the
piles of excrement and says, “You need to get a shovel and remove the smelly turds; they are
gross and really stink;” but is told: “Our house is really big, we can tolerate a whole bunch of
turds. By the way we really like turds, so just keep your mouth shut and hold your nose in our
house.”
Let us keep in mind an old Covenanter application of Proverbs 22:28: “Do not remove
the ancient landmark which your fathers have set.” This was a law that protected the boundaries
that marked inheritance (cf. Deut. 19:14) from generation to generation. If this moral principle is
applied to the church’s doctrinal and ethical boundaries set by prior generations (that is, the set
boundaries of orthodoxy or the accumulated doctrinal attainments of our spiritual forefathers),
then we see the immorality and danger of treating errors in doctrine and practice as trifles. When
churchmen do this, they punch holes in the boundaries of orthodoxy which leads not only to a
rejection of many past attainments over time but also causes the sheep to become accustomed to
thieves and wolves among the flock. Historically it has been like a small hole in the dike that
grows wider as more and more water flows in.
Our spiritual forefathers understood this danger very well and thus made effective use of
covenanting to solidify past attainments and to keep out serious errors in doctrine and practice
that may become popular at any given time. Biblical covenanting is akin to procedures of
warfare during World War II. First, you need to conquer or take an area. This is done by driving
out, killing or capturing an enemy. Second, once a victory is achieved, the area must be secured.
14
This is done with the strategic placement of weapons, minefields, barbed wire, lookouts and so
on. The point is that once land is captured, it must be kept under control. This allows a buildup of
reserves and weaponry so the front can move continually forward. But what would happen if an
enemy allowed some spies in their midst or left holes in their defenses or said “we are really big
we can allow some Germans in our camp”? The Army would have so many skirmishes and
problems they will no longer move forward and probably will be driven back.
This is what happens when Presbyterians refused to keep their covenants and allow
doctrinal pluralism and many things that are clearly unbiblical and unconfessional. Christians
understand that when children are not disciplined, they often become brats and sometimes even
criminals. Proof of this observation is found in America’s ghettos where men are usually absent
from the home. Yet when it comes to the church, lawful discipline and theological rigor is seen as
unloving, harsh, negative, and counterproductive. Those who stand up for the biblical
attainments are said to lack charity and to be legalistic. They are attacked and persecuted for
speaking the truth in love. Can you not see that such thinking is leading churches into declension
and apostasy? Is it not time to cast aside pragmatism and humanistic nonsense and return to the
biblical philosophy of corporate sanctification which involves a corporate confession of sin when
necessary and a faithful commitment to our covenant obligations?
When Presbyterian denominations hold to loose subscriptionism and ordain men that
have all sorts of exceptions to the standards, the set boundaries of orthodoxy become porous and
the unity of true confessionalism is replaced by competing factions within the church. In such
circumstances, in principle, there really remains no objective subordinate standard. One must
vigorously question the members of a session in an attempt to discern the actual beliefs of the
pastor and the elders. For example, in the R.P.C.N.A. some pastors and elders do not believe in
the regulative principle or biblical worship, however, many do. Many pastors and elders do not
believe in covenanting although some do. Most pastors and elders believe that extra biblical holy
days are fine, a few (very few) object. When exceptions are common (and they are), can one
really say that the R.P.C.N.A. is faithful to the covenants? If many people openly and habitually
disobey their own subordinate standards or do not really require what their covenants require, are
they really Covenanters or are they Covenanters in name only? Keep in mind that the purpose of
a covenanted reformation is uniformity in accordance with the truth. This purpose is clearly in
keeping with the teaching of the New Testament: “It was needful for me to write unto you, and
exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints” (Jude 3). “[B]e of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace” (2 Cor. 13:11). “Now I
beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17). “As I besought thee…that thou mightest
charge some that they teach no other doctrine” (1 Tim. 6:3-5). “O Timothy, keep that which is
committed to thy trust” (1 Tim. 6:20). “Hold fast the form of sound words, which thou hast heard
of me, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 1:13). “And the things that thou hast
heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit out to faithful men, who shall be able to
teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). An overseer must hold “fast the faithful word as he had been
15
taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers” (Tit.
1:9). “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine” (Tit. 2:1). “A man that is an
heretick [i.e. one holding to his own opinion] after the first and second admonition reject” (Tit.
3:10). Clearly, the church is not to draw back from a detailed, clear, pure testimony to a more
general, ambiguous, evasive, pluralistic one.
This was the original position of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. In their Reformation
Principles Exhibited (1807) they declared that they condemned and testified against the error,
“that it is lawful, in order to enlarge the church, to open a wider door of communion, by
declining from a more pointed testimony, to one which is more loose and general.”11 They
understood that the way to avoid a corrupt, compromising, hypocritical, declining
Presbyterianism is to fight for the truth against error instead of compromising with error in order
to grow the church.
If the 1980 R.P.C.N.A. Testimony’s statement on corporate responsibility on page 39 is
biblical (“Every man bears a degree of responsibility for the sins of groups in which he
participates. When sins are corporate, repentance and confession should be corporate as
well…”), and we believe it most certainly is, then a few questions come to mind. First, should
not those within the R.P.C.N.A. who are still faithfully adhering to the covenants and the
standards bring up ministers, elders, sessions and even whole presbyteries on charges if they
openly and habitually disobey the Word of God, the subordinate standards and their covenant
obligations? Yes, they should.
Some may object by saying, “But we (the R.P.C.N.A.) practice loose subscriptionism; we
allow many exceptions to the standards including a belief in covenanting.” This would be the
logical answer, given recent history and current practice. The problem with this answer is that it
explicitly contradict the whole reason that the original Covenanters remained separate from the
Revolution Settlement Church (1690) or the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland was
more conservative in doctrine and practice than the current R.P.C.N.A., yet the Covenanters
refused to join this body because it did not require adherence to previous covenant obligations.
The Covenanters remained separate and faithful because they could not cooperate with covenant
breaking, unbiblical compromise and declension at the constitutional level. Given the
R.P.C.N.A.’s current practice, they have no reason not to merge with the Free Church
Continuing, who even though they reject the descending obligations of the covenants, in practice
are much more faithful to what the covenants require. Loose subscriptionism, logically should
lead to unbiblical ecumenicalism. (This is seen in the R.P.C.N.A.’s participation in NAPARC
where communion and pulpits are exchanged with denominations that have openly and
habitually rejected Reformed worship and tolerate men who deny the gospel [i.e. the Federal
Vision advocates in the OPC and PCA]. If friendly debate on issues of reform and repentance are
desired, with the long-term goal of union (based on the attainments of our covenanted
reformation) are sought, then one should establish communicating relations, not fraternal
11
Reformation Principles Exhibited: Part II. Being the Declaration and Testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church in America (New York: Hopkins and Seymour, 1807), 120.
16
relations. The latter is clearly a corporate compromise with sin and dangerous error. (Biblical
worship and justification by faith are important doctrines. Calvin called them the twin pillars of
the Reformation.)
Second, given the fact of the R.P.C.N.A.’s current habitual declension and open covenant
breaking, are we (The Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States) as a separate body
obligated to join the R.P.C.N.A.? According to the R.P.C.N.A.’s own testimony, we should
remain separate until she acknowledges her serious declension and repents. (This does not mean
that we cannot have communicating relations with the long-term goal of union if she repents.)
Our goal is union but only upon biblical, not pragmatic principles. Bannerman writes,
Union, and not division, is a Christian axiom, lying at the very root of all our ideas of a
Christian Church; and neither individual Christians nor churches can acquit themselves of sin in
their separation from other Christians or churches where Providence offereth opportunity for
union, unless upon one or other of those grounds, either—first, that it is impossible to
acknowledge them as Christian men or Churches; or, secondly, that well acknowledging them as
such, it is impossible to work together with them without sin [i.e. without violating one’s
conscience by being forced to do something that one believes with solid evidence to be wrong
or sinful]. One or other of these two reasons will alone justify separation, where opportunity is
given; less than one or other of these reasons will not exempt from sin the man or the church
that chooses division rather than oneness in Christ Jesus.12
We do not believe one is justified in being separate if there are some wicked people in a church
or some deficient pastors. A problem, however, arises when there are constitutional errors and
serious errors at the synod level that forces one to violate Scripture, our Standards, or covenant
obligations.
The Testimony on Good Works
In the 1980 Testimony’s comments on Confession of Faith 16:7, we read, “By God’s
grace, many unregenerate men have generous impulses and may lead outwardly moral lives. Yet
good works are only those things done in obedience to his revealed will, out of sincere love for
him and desire to serve him. The Christian may work with unbelievers in seeking the good of
society, but his chief motive should be the glory of God. Christians should avoid any voluntary
association in which they cannot maintain a consistent testimony for Christ. Rom. 14:23; Eph.
2:10; Jn. 15:5; Rom. 12:1-2.”
There are number of problems with this statement. The first sentence, which apparently is
an appeal to the doctrine of “common grace,” is sloppy and misleading. The traditional
Reformed view of common grace is that: (a) God bestows general blessings such as rain,
sunshine, food, clothing, etc. on the elect and non-elect alike. These blessings are undeserved and
thus are gracious. However, in the case of the wicked, they accrue more judgment on the final
12
The Church of Christ, 2:335-336.
17
day. (b) For the sake of the gathering of the elect, the Spirit of God restrains the wicked without
renewing their hearts. This is done through general or special revelation. A so-called “generous
impulse” among the wicked is not really generous for it flows from human autonomy, selfishness
and rebellion against God; thus, the unregenerate only have an apparent generosity. This
oversight is corrected (or rather contradicted) by the next sentence, which reflects the original
Confession.
The most egregious error in this paragraph is the statement: “The Christian may work
with unbelievers in seeking the good of society, but his chief motive should be the glory of God.”
We agree that the glory of God should be our chief motive in every endeavor. But how can
Christians work for the good of society with unbelievers whose chief goal is the glory of man? If
this statement was spoken of helping an old woman cross the street or change a spare tire or a
neighbor place some sandbags in a flood, that would be one thing. But it is much broader and
speaks of the good of society as a whole. This position unwittingly assumes areas of ethical and
religious neutrality between believers and unbelievers on a social level, which is impossible and,
in the long run, dangerous. While an unbeliever can show the work of the law written in his heart
(Rom. 2:15), he cannot develop a Christian law order, Christian schools, Christian methods of
helping the poor or a biblical social policy. All of these things can only be obtained through
special grace and special revelation. They can only be pleasing to God if done through Jesus
Christ the Mediator. Therefore, to cooperate with unbelievers and heretics (which has been the
general policy of the R.P.s since at least 1830) is totally unbiblical and has been an unmitigated
disaster for America. By such unlawful cooperation, professing Christians have been guilty of
syncretism and have allowed themselves to be used by the heathen to further their ungodly aims.
As Gary North notes,
For two centuries, humanists in the United States have been enlisting Christian evangelicals into
a seemingly endless stream of “save the world” programs. The humanists cry out, “Baptize us!
Baptize us!…and please take up a compulsory collection for us.” For two centuries, wellmeaning Christians have been digging deep into their wallets in order to supply the tax
collectors with funds to finance a series of supposedly religiously neutral social reform
programs that have been created by the messianic State and staffed by humanist bureaucrats.
Taxpayer-funded, evolution-teaching government schools have been the most persistent,
effective, and representative example of this continuing delusion. Without the spurious
supporting doctrine of morally and intellectually neutral natural law, it would not be possible for
the humanists to wrap the anti-Christian programs in the ragged swaddling cloth of a common
morality.13
Scottish Reformed Presbyterians concur: “Owing to the depravity of our nature, by the
fall, ‘The way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.’ Jer. x.23.
13
Tools of Dominion, p. 21.
18
The dictates of his natural judgment and conscience, unassisted by the heavenly Oracles, are
altogether insufficient to guide his feet in the path of duty; either in one station, or another.”14
But one may object, “Does not the very next sentence of the 1980 Testimony say,
‘Christians should avoid any voluntary association in which they cannot maintain a consistent
testimony’?” Yes, it certainly does. But this statement explicitly contradicts the previous sentence
regarding seeking the good of society by working with unbelievers. Jehovah says, “Can two walk
together, unless they are agreed?” (Amos 3:3). Paul says, “What accord has Christ with Belial?
Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15). “The unbelievers life is on self,
the believers on Christ; the treasure of the one is here on earth, of the other in heaven; the values
of the one are those of this world, of the other those of the world to come; the believer seeks the
glory of God, the unbeliever the glory of men.”15
If we associate with unbelievers and heretics in some social cause (e.g., fighting abortion
on demand, the anti-slavery movement, the temperance movements, “women’s rights,” public
schools, etc.), we are not helping them at all and actually do them great harm. Instead of
confronting them with their need to embrace Jesus Christ (His person and work) as He is
revealed in the Scriptures, we are implicitly telling them that they are moral, good and acceptable
in their current state. We not only harm them by hardening them in their unbelief or infidelity,
but also are in great danger of watering down the sharp ethical, religious and epistemological
differences that exist between true Christians and pagans or secular humanists.
Anyone familiar with such cooperative efforts in the past will see that it was the
Christians who compromised their core principles in such alliances, not the heretics or heathen.
When the orthodox seek association with infidels, the lowest common denominator prevails
because “the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness
to him; nor can he know them” (1 Cor. 2:14). “Because the carnal mind is enmity against God;
for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh
cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7-8). Unbelievers are incapable, without a work of regeneration and
a complete change of heart and worldview, of truly moving up to or Advocating the Christian
law-order or world and life view. Thus, in the end, the Christians who take up a “do-gooder”
cause with unbelievers end up working with the heathen for something that is less than what God
actually requires, or even worse for something that is unbiblical and harmful to society (e.g., a
moment of silence or a generic prayer not made through Christ the Mediator; or, intelligent
design instead of creation ex nihilo by the Triune God of Scripture; or, the complete abolition of
slavery instead of the replacement of chattel heathen slavery with biblical slavery; or the
complete prohibition of alcoholic beverages by coercive state power instead of moderation and
14
Truth No Enemy to Peace. Animadversions on the Rev. Mr. Fletcher’s Defense of His Scripture-Loyalist. Some
General Principles Stated, and Shortly Illustrated. &. (Falkirk, Scotland: T. Johnston, 1799), 6.
15
Phillip E. Hughes, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 251.
19
the proper use of church discipline; giving women the vote instead of covenant headship voting
by Christian men who are property owners, etc.). Association with the heathen has always led to
compromise and syncretism, not true societal sanctification.
We ask, “What is the ethical base, foundation or standard on which the believer and
nonbeliever can work together on some ‘do-gooder’ cause?” The only seemingly logical answer
to this question would be some theory of natural law. But, aside from the fact that almost no one
believes in natural law anymore, what is the problem with seeking common ground with
unbelievers using natural law? One very obvious problem is that Christians and nations favored
with the light of the gospel are obligated to follow or submit to divine, supernatural, special
revelation, not an undefined or pagan concept of natural law. Jesus said to teach them [the
nations] “all things that I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:20). Why should Christians set aside
the perspicuous, perfect, sufficient, detailed teaching of Scripture to please unbelievers? Such a
procedure is not only unbiblical and displeasing in God’s sight but also is doomed to failure. One
cannot work for a moral America unless one works for an explicitly Christian America. This
point is rather obvious when we consider that one’s view of God and one’s worldview are the
main determining factors in how one will treat other human beings. For example, if one believes
that God does not exist and that we all evolved from pond scum, then he has no foundation or
reason why he should not lie, steal, cheat, commit adultery or murder. If people do not believe in
Christ and the infallible Word of God (the 66 canonical books of the Bible), then they have no
real reason to live moral, law-abiding lives. Everything then becomes arbitrary and all
argumentation descends to pragmatic or utilitarian arguments.
The Bible, when speaking of unbelievers, conveys “the work of the law on the heart” to
condemn men who do not have written revelation. It never set up natural law as a different,
sufficient source for societal ethics. Only the regenerated man who has faith in the infallible
Word of God can read nature as it ought to be read. Unbelievers stumble upon surface truths only
as a blind man stumbles into a chair. To seek at the core neutrality on the basis of natural law is
to essentially deny the need of saving grace and Christ’s mediation. Those who seek unity based
on natural law as a point of neutrality are unwittingly supporting human autonomy in ethics and
judicial law codes because: (1) Natural law is not perspicuous, due to the fall. (2) Men are not
neutral observers of the facts around them on account of Adam’s sin. The natural “unregenerate”
man is a covenant breaker from birth and looks at the facts around him from the perspective of
hostility toward God and the suppression of the truth (Rom. 1:21-25; 8:68; 1 Cor. 2:14). (3) God
did not design “nature” or “natural law” to be used as a source for truth, meaning, or ethics
independently of Scripture, especially since the fall. One cannot properly interpret any fact as to
its core meaning or purpose without a Christian epistemology or theory of knowledge.
Unbelievers can only have a surface or coincidental knowledge of the things around them.
20
Moreover, they must steal from the Christian worldview and theory of knowledge to make even
basic conclusions about reality. Scripture appeals to “nature” to convict men of knowingly
sinning and prove that men are guilty (Rom. 1:19-32); to confirm that men are aware of this guilt
contracted (Rom. 2:14-15); to upbraid believers for their disregard of the moral law (1 Cor. 5:1);
or, to prove a point concerning things common to human actions and societies (1 Cor. 11:13-14).
(4) An appeal to natural law as an independent source of ethics is foolishness, for natural law and
biblical law come from the same one and only true living God and teach the same thing.
The worldview of the heathen and secular humanists stops at the edge of fallen nature.
They deny true absolute, transcendent ethics and thus can conceive of nothing higher than their
own imaginations. Thus for them (even though they, at times, hold to a few correct views on a
surface level because they have been created in God’s image), autonomous man is the measure of
all things. Consequently, all cooperation in social “do-gooder” causes between believers and
unbelievers can only go to the edge of fallen nature—unless the Christians are in charge and are
telling unbelievers what to do based on special revelation. There can be no cooperation in
anything spiritual. What is needed for true unity of purpose, a true understanding of ethics and
true blueprints for a moral social order is regeneration by the Spirit, faith in Jesus Christ,
repentance toward God and a commitment to implementing a biblical law-order. For this reason,
all cooperation by the church with the ungodly for political, moral, or ethical reform is doomed
from the start. As Jesus says, “Can a bad tree bear good fruit?” (Mt. 7:18). Shall we do evil that
good may come (cf. 2 Chron. 19:2)? Can we really achieve a position of neutrality with those
“who call evil good and good evil…who are wise in their own eyes” (Isa. 5:20, 21)? Is not “the
fear of the LORD the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7)? The church cannot press the claims
of Jesus Christ as Ruler of the governors of the earth—King of kings and Lord of lords—while
negating her testimony by joining hands with the ungodly, ostensibly to achieve godly ends.
Such a practice is nothing but humanistic pragmatism masquerading as love and piety. Attempts
at social reform based on ideas of neutrality and holding hands with the wicked has been an
unmitigated disaster, for “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Prov. 12:10).
But what about godly men such as Joseph and Daniel who worked in heathen courts? Is
this not a cooperative effort between the heathen and the people of God for the good of society?
No; it is not for a number of reasons. First, these men were in charge of the heathen and were not
seeking accommodation with unbelievers. Giving orders is very different than a voluntary
association. In a theocratic state, there will be unbelievers and foreigners or sojourners but these
people do not assist in decision making. They must submit to a Christian law-order or be
prosecuted or expelled from the land. Second, the cases of Daniel and Joseph are extraordinary
and virtually non-repeatable in our day. The people of God were in positions of subjugation to
heathen rulers (in the case of Daniel, Israel’s captivity was due to God’s judgment on the people).
Joseph and Daniel were raised up by God using supernatural means to protect God’s people.
(This is also essentially the case with Mordecai, who the vast majority of scholars believe had
the prophetic gift.) Thus, the comparison between these men and Christians who opposed slavery
with Unitarians, or Protestants who oppose abortion with Romanist idolaters does not stand.
21
Everything that has been said about working with unbelievers or heretics for the good of
society is proved by the Reformed Presbyterians’ own history. They became allies with
Unitarians, Arminians and humanists in their “do-gooder” causes and thus unwittingly
contributed to results of death and disaster. The first area of unlawful associations was over the
abolition of slavery. The Reformed Presbyterians had a noble and excellent record on this topic
prior to their unlawful associations. In 1800 licentiate Alexander McLeod refused a call by the
Coldenham congregation in New York because there was a slaveholder in that congregation. This
resulted in the presbytery taking a stand against slavery and the church adopted an absolute
prohibition against slaveholding for all its members. In 1803 McLeod published a sermon against
slavery entitled Negro Slavery Unjustifiable. The R.P. Church was very active against slavery by
preaching against it, publishing sermons, printing articles in their periodicals and in various
reports to Synod. McLeod became active and even played a part in the American Colonization
Society in 1816. The R.P. Church took an official position in favor of that organization in 1827.
One of the goals of the organization was to resettle freed slaves in Africa (Liberia).
Later, as the arguments on both sides became heated and aggressive, Covenanters
approved of and worked with William Lloyd Garrison. Garrison was the publisher of the radical
anti-slavery newspaper the Liberator. The abolitionists had shifted by this time from gradual
emancipation and colonization to immediate liberation and enfranchisement. Although Garrison
was against the use of violence, abolitionists in New England became revolutionary in their
views and supported John Brown and his use of violence. The movement that the R.P.s worked
with (the New England Anti-Slavery Society) was dominated by radical Unitarians who were
statist antichrists. A Covenanter minister from Vermont (N.R. Johnston) accompanied Garrison
on a speaking tour of that state. Garrison was an early feminist, a pacifist, a perfectionist, an antiSabbatarian and a rank heretic. To work with him and his wicked organization was rooted in
pragmatism (the end justifies the means) and not biblical principles. The R.P.s could have
opposed slavery more effectively and far more biblically by avoiding such wicked alliances.
By 1860 the R.P.s were even supportive of the murderer and terrorist John Brown (he and
his sons murdered a proslavery family in Kansas in the middle of the night in cold blood; he was
satanic to the core). An R.P. minister from New Alexandria, Pennsylvania wrote a supportive,
kind letter of friendship to him after the Harper’s Ferry fiasco (the first person murdered in this
attack by Brown’s men was an innocent African American). Was he condemned by the Synod for
showing sympathy to a murderer and terrorist? No. His letter was published in the
denominational magazine under “Interesting Correspondence.”16
Many scholars believe the heated rhetoric and revolutionary sentiments of the
abolitionists helped contribute to the Civil War. While the southern states started the war and
were guilty of an unbiblical, wicked form of slavery, they were, to a degree, provoked. Over
650,000 men died in this war, the vast majority of which never owned a slave. While the R.P.s
had good intentions, their pragmatism caused them to forge alliances with humanistic satanists.
Let us all learn from their serious error.
16
Reformed Presbyterian, XXIV (January, 1860), 25-26.
22
The Temperance Movement
Another unlawful association that caused great harm to the United States of America was
that of temperance. The temperance movement did not really teach temperance but abstinence.
(The word temperance refers to habitual moderation in the indulgence of certain appetites or
passions.) Their goal was to make all alcoholic beverages illegal (except for medicinal or
sacramental use). It was designed to force society to be more holy through state coercion. The
temperance movement became extremely popular among various Christian denominations
during the 1830s and remained popular until the passing of prohibition in 1920.
Although the R.P.s did not have a prior tradition or history of seeking prohibition and
Advocating total abstinence (in fact, one of the reasons Presbyterians hated Cromwell was that
he placed a tax on alcoholic beverages in Scotland to help pay for his army), they were swept up
in the cause of the temperance movement. In 1836, Synod recommended that all church
members refrain from selling alcoholic beverages. By 1841, that recommendation became a
requirement for all church members. Any violation of this rule would result in church discipline.
In the Reformed Presbyterian of September 1838, great enthusiasm was expressed for the growth
of temperance movement “for the last eight or ten years.”17 Throughout the next 20 years, there
was a steady progression of the leaven of “temperance” (i.e. a total abstinence position) in the
R.P. Church. Lakes Presbytery (in 1852) and New York Presbytery (in 1855) both outlawed all
imbibing of alcoholic beverages within their jurisdictions. The Synod followed suit in 1857
making the prohibition church wide. This complete prohibition would last well over 100 years.
The R.P. Church actively participated in temperance societies even though their ranks
were filled with heretics (Arminians, Methodists and Baptists). Even the great James R. Willson
(whose writings on the civil magistrate are excellent) was carried into this vile legalistic stream.
He was very active in the New York temperance society (see Albany Quarterly, No 1, appendix,
1-12) as both a speaker and organizer. The R.P. synod encouraged the active participation of R.P.
ministers and members in temperance societies as early as 1830. When a temperance society
wrote a letter to the R.P. Synod in 1830, the Synod responded by saying, “This Synod highly
approve[s] of the temperance cause, and recommend[s] it to all under their care.”18
In the 1850’s the R.P. Synod endorsed the position that the civil magistrate could totally
outlaw the sale of alcoholic beverages for recreational use. This occurred when in 1853 the New
York Presbytery asked the synod to make a ruling on legal prohibition in response to a recent
civil prohibition in Maine (the Maine Liquor Law). The Synod responded by giving “its hearty
approbation to the principles involved in the law commonly called the Maine Liquor Law, viz.:
the right and the duty of civil government to wholly prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks,
except for medicinal, chemical, mechanical, and sacramental purposes.”19
17
“Intemperance,” 201.
Minutes of Synod, 1830.
19
Minutes of Synod, 1853. Reformed Presbyterian, XVII (July, August, 1853), 143, 185.
18
23
In the case of the R.P. Church’s unlawful associations in the area of so-called
“temperance,” we see a number of serious problems that have damaged the church and America
as a whole. First, we see an abandonment of sola Scriptura in the realm of ethics. Orthodox
Christians believe that the Bible is inspired, perfect and sufficient both regarding doctrine and
ethics. This is taught clearly in the many Old Testament passages which warn us not to add or
detract from God’s law (e.g., Deut. 4:2; 12:30-32; Jer. 7:24, 31; etc.) and passages such as 2
Timothy 3:14-17, where Paul tells Timothy that teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in
righteousness is to come from God’s Word because it is sufficient and perfect for thoroughly
equipping Christians for every good work. If the Word of God advocates total abstinence or
teaches the civil magistrates to outlaw the use of alcoholic beverages, then we should do so. But
if Scripture does not advocate these views, then to advocate them is legalism and a violation of
sola Scriptura. Obviously, Christians are free to abstain from all alcoholic beverages if they
please. But they do not have the right to impose their views on others. To advocate or require
total abstinence from every Christian is to implicitly denying that the Bible alone is the starting
point and supreme standard for defining ethical behavior. It is to embrace human autonomy and
an unbiblical pragmatism in ethics. Even worse, it is to argue that what God Himself says is a
great blessing (when used properly, of course) is in fact an evil curse. Note the following
passages,
“And thou shalt bestow that money [a celebration tithe] for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after
[desires], for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul
desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou and
thine household” (Deut. 14:26).
He causes the grass to grow for the cattle, and vegetation for the service of man, that he may
bring forth food from the earth, and wine that makes gladden the heart of man, oil to make his
face shine, and bread which strengthens man’s heart (Ps. 104:14-15). Note that God says that
food, wine and oil are His gifts for man’s blessing. A moderate gladdening of man’s heart with
wine has the Holy Spirit’s endorsement.
In Amos 9:13, an abundance of wine is prophesied as a characteristic of one of the blessings
of Israel's restoration: “‘Behold, the days are coming,’ says the LORD, ‘When the plowman
shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him who sows seed; the mountains shall drip
with sweet wine, and all the hills shall flow with it.’”
Isaiah 25:6 is similar: “And the LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all
peoples on this mountain; a banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow, and refined, aged
wine” (NASB). This banquet is prepared for the covenant people by God Himself. To suggest
that Jehovah was wrong or immoral or unwise in serving wine at this banquet is almost
blasphemous. Jesus instituted the banquet for His bride (the Lord’s Supper) using real wine.
(Keep in mind the Passover occurred 6 to 7 months after the grape harvest in late summer.
Therefore, any idea that Jesus used grape juice at the holy supper is absurd and impossible. In the
24
warm Middle Eastern climate, which was not antiseptic or very clean, grape juice would last at
the most a few days. The making of wine by the Jews was an art and a necessity. Those who
argue that our Lord supernaturally removed the alcohol from the wine are grasping at straws.
(Such thinking is no more serious or exegetical than modernists who claim Jesus walked across
the Sea of Galilee on a sandbar.)
The biblical (i.e. ethical) position regarding wine or alcoholic beverages is that they are
blessed and lawful as long as they are not abused. Drunkenness is expressly condemned by many
passages of Scripture (see Eph. 5:18; Rom. 13:13; Gal. 5:19, 21; 1 Cor. 5:11; 6:10; Prov. 23:30).
If the Bible taught total abstinence as a divine requirement, such passages would be superfluous.
Drunkenness is a curse (Jer. 13:13-14; 22:28; 28:33; Prov. 23:21; etc.) that leads a person to hell
if he does not repent (1 Cor. 6:10; Gal. 5:21). It corrupts morals (Gen. 9:21; 19:32), weakens our
bodies (Prov. 23:30, 32; Hos. 7:5; Isa. 19:14), and leads to injustice and poor decision-making
(Prov. 23:22-21; 31:4, 5; Isa. 5:22-23). Drunkards are disgusting and vile (Isa. 28:7-8; Jer. 25:27;
Ps. 107:25). If a person has a prior habitual sin pattern of drunkenness and is tempted to get
drunk, then total abstinence (excluding the holy supper) may be wise for him. But no one—no
elder, pastor, session, presbytery or synod—has the authority to go beyond Scripture or declare
something to be a sin that God explicitly says is lawful and even a blessing.
Second, we see a violation of the Westminster Standards on liberty of conscience: “God
alone is Lord of the conscience [Jas. 4:12; Rom. 14:4], and has left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to His Word; or beside it, in matters of
faith or worship [Acts 4:19; 5:29; 1 Cor. 7:23; Mt. 15:9; 23:8-10;2 Cor. 1:24]. So that, to believe
such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of
conscience [Col. 2:20, 22, 23; Gal. 1:10; 2:4, 5; 5:1]: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and
an absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also [Rom. 10:17;
14:23; Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11; Jn. 4:22; Hos. 5:11; Rev. 13:12, 16, 17; Jer. 8:9]” (Confession of
Faith 20.2). The Confession here simply upholds the principle of sola Scriptura with very
biblical and explicit statements. The conscience in all matters of faith [i.e. what we are required
to believe] and duty [i.e. everything relating to ethics or proper behavior] is subject to the
authority of God alone. Christians are totally free when it comes to the opinions, traditions,
rulings, or commandments of men.20 Presbyteries and Synods can make certain rulings regarding
20
James Bannerman is excellent with regard to this point: “The direct object of the Confession in this passage is no
doubt to assert the right and extent of liberty of conscience; but along with that, it very distinctly enunciates the
doctrine, that neither in regard to faith nor in regard to worship has the church any authority beside or beyond
what is laid down in the Bible; and that it has no right to decree and enforce new observances or institutions in
the department of Scriptural worship, any more than to teach and inculcate new truths in the department of
Scriptural faith. In entire accordance with the statement of the Confession, is the doctrine announced in the
Larger and Shorter Catechisms. In the Larger Catechism, the answer to the question, ‘What are the sins
forbidden in the second commandment?’ tells us that ‘the sins forbidden in the second commandment are all
devising, counseling, commanding, using, and in any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by
God Himself;’...‘all superstitious devices, corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether
invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity,
custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever.’ In answer to a similar question, the Shorter
25
circumstantial matters for the good order of the church, such as the time of worship or the
meeting of Presbytery, but they cannot declare something to be immoral or wrong without prior
exegetical proof from Scripture. Only God has that authority. Thus, theologians refer to
Presbyterian church government and authority as purely ministerial and declarative, not creative
or intrinsic [e.g., Romanism, the divine right of kings, modern secular humanism’s fiat laws]. To
believe or obey commandments that are contrary to God’s Word or simply made by men is to
betray true liberty of conscience, which is sinful. As Paul says, “Whatever is not of faith is sin”
(Rom. 14:23). A faith in human tradition or commandments is an implicit faith and requires
absolute blind obedience. It renders homage to man as the lawgiver and is implicitly humanistic
and anti-Christian. Instead of acting like the pope or papal bishops who enact laws by their own
authority and thus enslave their deluded followers, Christians are explicitly and repeatedly
required to examine and prove every doctrine or requirement by the unerring rule of sacred
Scripture (Isa. 8:20, 1 Jn. 4:1).
If we submit to unbiblical and unlawful rulings of a Presbytery or Synod such as rules
requiring total abstinence (or laws saying we cannot sell alcoholic beverages), then we: violate
Scripture; support a form of popery and legalism; implicitly teach that God is immoral and
unwise; and contribute to ecclesiastical bondage. It is anti-Protestant and anti-Reformed to the
core. It is no different than requiring people to use “holy” water, or make the sign of the cross or
practice celibacy or put honey and milk in a baby’s mouth at baptism, etc. In such cases, we must
obey God rather than men. While these men believed they were doing good for society and were
very sincere, their unbiblical decisions were wicked and, in the end, led to an explosion of
organized crime in America and countless deaths, corruption and suffering.
Third, man-made rules and regulations do not and cannot sanctify man or subdue the
sinful flesh. Paul makes this point clear in his condemnation of legalism in the sphere of
sanctification in his epistle to the Colossians: “Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic
principles of the world, why as though living in the world do you subject yourself to regulations
–‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concerned things which perish with the
Catechism declares that ‘the second commandment forbiddeth the worshiping of God by images, or any other
way not appointed in His Word.’ The doctrine, then, in regard to the exercise of Church power in the worship of
God held by our standards is sufficiently distinct. The Church has no authority in regulating the manner,
appointing the form, or dictating the observances of worship, beside or beyond what the Scripture declares on
these points,—the Bible containing the only directory for determining these matters, and the Church having no
discretion to add to or alter what is there fixed” (The Church of Christ [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1869]
1960], 1:337- 338).
The worship of God and the ordinances thereof have been forever fixed by the canonical Scriptures (the 66
books of the Old and New Testament). These sacred duties have been committed to the church and this church
has a solemn and crucial responsibility to maintain these duties precisely as delivered to the church by Christ and
the apostles. Since the current popular methods of dispensing the holy supper are only a century and a half old,
obviously they cannot be biblical and the churchmen responsible have not faithfully maintained the true practice
in this area. We would strongly urge our brothers to repent in this area and be content with the clear teaching of
Jesus Christ on the holy supper, so that we can all feast together and peacefully enjoy the one cup of real wine
with our brothers in Christ.
26
using according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an
appearance of wisdom in self imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of
no value against the indulgence of the flesh” (2:20-23).
The teachings of the temperance movement seemed wise and good to those who
advocated them. They argued that there is much drunkenness in society; therefore, one should
ban all drinking completely and make the selling of alcoholic beverages illegal. If men cannot
purchase alcohol, then they won’t get drunk and abuse their wives and children. The temperance
advocate Charles Fowler (a Methodist bishop) wrote, “If Jesus was on the side of wine drinking,
he was on the side of ‘wife beating and child beating,’ and ‘seven-eights [sic] of all the crime
committed in the civilized world.’”21 But such thinking completely ignores Paul’s teaching that
human imaginations and traditions are elements of this world (Col. 2:8). Thus, they cannot be
objects of a holy faith and cannot be used to convict, convince and change sinners by the Holy
Spirit—the Spirit of Truth. Jesus said, “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your Word is truth” (Jn.
17:17). Consequently, as Paul says such rules “are of no value against the indulgence of the
flesh” (Col. 2:23).
Our sole authority and direction in life is to be found in God’s law-Word. To go beyond
the Word of God in the name of science and pragmatism is, in a sense, to despise the Word. It is a
form of a legalism that exalts man above God in ethics, as if God’s Word was not sufficient or
was defective in some sense. We should heed Solomon’s warning: “He who despises the Word
will be destroyed, but he who fears the commandment will be rewarded. The law of the wise is a
fountain of life, to turn one away from the snares of death” (Prov. 13:13-14). We should also
listen to our beloved Savior who strongly rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for adding to God’s
law saying, “Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Mt.
5:3). The religious leaders added their own rules and regulations to God’s law to “perfect” it and
“fence” it and thus they made the commandment of God of no effect by their tradition (Mt. 5:6).
This is exactly what the temperance movement did by taking something God made to be a
blessing, if used lawfully, and declaring it always to be a curse. If we are to maintain purity and
integrity in Christian ethics, we must strictly adhere to and obey God’s commands without
adding or detracting from them.
That the temperance movement and prohibition, its crowning achievement, was a massive
failure which did not sanctify society can be seen from the following facts:
(1) It caused the state to put many lawful businesses that had existed for generations out
of business overnight. Families that owned breweries and distilleries were deprived of a lawful
livelihood by an arbitrary, unjust law. Keep in mind that the law of God does not forbid the
drinking, making or selling of wine or strong drink. What God teaches is lawful; no elder, pastor
or civil magistrate has the authority or right to make unlawful. To do so is to play God. It is an
implicit divinization of the state. Remember, that at the wedding feast in Cana after the wedding
party ran out of wine, Mary (the blessed mother of Jesus) sent those in charge of provisions to
21
As quoted in Jennifer L. Woodruff Tait’s, The Poisoned Chalice: Eucharistic Grape Juice and Common-Sense
Realism in Victorian Methodism (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 2011), 18.
27
her Son to remedy the situation. Did our Lord rebuke them for serving alcoholic beverages? Did
he rebuke Mary for wanting to replenish the wine? No. He created twenty to thirty gallons of a
much better quality real wine. By way of analogy we could say they ran out of Budweiser and
Jesus replaced it with a top-quality Bavarian or craft brew. The Savior gives His people the
greatest of blessings and will give us the very best wine at the marriage supper of the Lamb.
The temperance movement had the best of intentions and was very sincere; but, because
it was not based on Scripture, its fruit was rotten and poisonous. It was statist and wicked. It
thought that sanctification could come through legislation. It looked to the state instead of to
Christ. It sought to sanctify man from the outside in, instead of the inside out. While it is true that
God has made the civil magistrate to punish evildoers in order to subdue crime (in other words,
the threat of punishment or force restrains criminal activities), selling or drinking alcoholic
beverages is neither a sin nor a crime. Drunkenness is a sin and public drunkenness or
drunkenness that causes property damage or loss of life is a serious crime.
(2) Because of prohibition drinking became much more popular with young people and
with women. Prior to prohibition, bars in America were really the domain of men. Men would go
have a drink with their friends and talk. After prohibition, the speakeasies were coed and
drinking had a greater allure among young people. The making of bars coed continued after
prohibition ended; ever since bars have become a place for men to go to find young immoral
women to fornicate with. Prior to prohibition the majority of men did not go to bars to get
hammered and raise hell. They drank in moderation and socialized. The speakeasies were places
to get drunk and “raise hell.”
(3) Prohibition led to a 1000 fold increase in organized crime in the United States.
Alcoholic beverages are not hard to make or smuggle. The safe, regulated, high quality alcoholic
beverage companies and their distributors were replaced by a bunch of violent, psychopathic,
lawless gangsters. The five organized crime families came into being in New York during the
1920s. We all know the history of Al Capone, Lucky Luciano and the incredible violence and
corruption of this period. In many cities, the police and civil officials were exceptionally corrupt.
Unjust, unreasonable laws do not make society better, they make it worse. Corrupt laws can help
produce corrupt men.
(4) Prohibition led to thousands of deaths due to impurities and poisons that made their
way into illegal batches of alcohol. Besides the many deaths, blindness, paralysis and other
crippling conditions also occurred. All of this tragedy was completely unnecessary. The
compassion of ignorant, unbiblical do-gooders always has bitter, unintended consequences.
The Legalism Lingers
Having noted the disastrous effects of the R.P. Church’s associations with the unbiblical
temperance movement, it needs to be pointed out that in the area of alcoholic beverages the
unbiblical legalism has been moderated. This can be seen in the 1980 Testimony’s comments
under Chapter 26: of The Communion of Saints section 2: “Because drunkenness is so common,
28
and because the intemperate use of alcohol is constantly being promoted by advertising, business
practices, and social pressure, Christians must be careful not to conform to the attitudes and the
practices of the world with regard to alcoholic beverages. To prevent damage to our neighbor, to
provide mutual help in godly living, and to strengthen each other in living a disciplined life it is
altogether wise and the proper that Christians refrain from the use, sale and manufacture of
alcohol beverages. Prov. 20:1; Rom. 14:21; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 8:13.”
In the second half of this section Christians are told that it is wise and proper to refrain
from the use, sale and manufacture of alcohol beverages. In other words, the 1980 Testimony
Advocates a position of complete abstinence. Is this position biblical? No. It most certainly is
not. Biblical wisdom is defined by the application of divine revelation or truth to life or human
experience. It is the faithful application of God’s law to particular situations. This raises the
question: What laws in the Bible tell God’s people that they cannot drink at all or sell or
manufacture alcoholic beverages? The answer is: There are none. Not even one. Given this fact,
the wisdom which the 1980 Testimony Advocates is the wisdom of human autonomy, or the
wisdom of this world.
The Testimony also says it is “proper,” that is correct or right, to completely abstain from
alcoholic beverages. Is this position biblically defensible? The answer is: No, absolutely not. If it
is improper and unwise to drink at all then: (a) Jesus was unwise and wrong for creating wine at
the wedding feast and serving His disciples real wine at the last Passover/first Lord’s Supper; (b)
Paul was improper and unwise for allowing the Corinthians to drink real alcoholic wine at their
love feasts and the holy supper (Note that, in 1 Corinthians 11:21-22, the Corinthians who were
out of line were not those who drank alcoholic beverages but those who got drunk. If all drinking
were forbidden, this would have been impossible. The primary behavior rebuked here is a lack of
love and unity because those who had plenty were unwilling to share with those who had need.);
(c) Jehovah was unwise and improper for repeatedly telling His covenant people that wine was a
blessing and was given to make the heart glad (see Deut. 7:13, 11:14, 14:23-26, 28:51; Prov.
3:10, 104:14-15; Isa. 25:6, 55:1, 62:8; Amos 9:13-15; Zech. 9:17); (d) Melchizedek was unwise
and improper for bringing out bread and wine when he met and blessed Abram (Gen. 14:18-20).
Perhaps the proof texts given in the 1980 Testimony will prove their assertions. The first
is Proverbs 20:1: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whoever is deceived thereby is
not wise” (KJV). A better translation is the NASB: “Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler,
and whosoever is intoxicated by it is not wise.” Here Solomon uses a figure of speech
(metonymy) where the word “wine” is substituted for the man who gets drunk: “The drunk man
is a mocker and a brawler.” What this passage teaches is that it is unwise to get drunk or drink to
excess. It does not speak to the issue of total abstinence at all. If it did, it would contradict dozens
of explicit passages.
The second proof text is Romans 14:21: “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor
do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak.” That this proof text
does not prove the total abstinence position is demonstrated in the following points: (1) The main
issue here is to not do anything which would cause a weaker brother to stumble. This passage
29
teaches us not to serve meat or wine offered to idols to a weak brother; that is a brother who
cannot eat meat or drink wine offered to idols without violating his or her conscience. It does not
refer at all to people who believe drinking beer or wine is a sin. (2) Even if we consider the
common modern idea that, by way of application, we should not drink alcoholic beverages
because many Christians believe it is a sin, the passage still does not teach total abstinence. We
are told not to cause a weak brother to stumble. This means we should not serve meat or wine
offered to false gods to a brother. By way of application, we should not serve beer or wine to a
Christian who believes it is a sin. It does not teach that those who are strong or have a proper
understanding about alcoholic beverages cannot drink them because other Christians don’t like it.
This point is clearly proven by two considerations: (a) How could a weak brother stumble if a
strong brother has a glass of wine or a beer in private in his home? Can something that he does
not even know about cause him to stumble? (b) In 1 Corinthians 8:4-13 Paul says explicitly that
the heathen gods do not really exist and that it is perfectly permissible to eat meat offered to
idols. The only time a strong Christian should refrain is when it would directly tempt a weak
brother (1 Cor. 8:10). By way of comparison, one should not serve wine or beer to a teetotaler.
The 1980 Testimony’s use of Romans 14:21 is illegitimate exegetically and totally off the mark
regarding application. It is Scripture twisting to justify legalism. (The fourth proof text is
essentially the same as Romans 14:21.)
The third proof text (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) teaches us that drunkards will not inherit the
kingdom of God. We wholeheartedly agree. Drunkenness is a wicked sin that is very harmful and
sends men straight to hell. But this sobering truth does not mean that Christians who drink in
moderation are going to hell. If it did then Jesus, the apostles and the vast majority of Christians
throughout history are going to hell including John Calvin, John Knox, Martin Luther and the
original Covenanters, etc. Consequently, this proof text, like the others, does not teach or support
the abstinence position.
Temperance and the Corruption of the Lord’s Supper
The Lord Jesus Christ instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s supper with real wine and
one cup which was passed hand-to-hand from disciple to disciple. The biblical accounts are as
follows, “He took the cup [singular], and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink from it
[singular], all of you’” (Mt. 26:27). R.T. France writes, “The wording indicates a single cup from
which they all drank.”22 If early Jewish rabbinical sources can be trusted, what Jesus did at the
institution was a definite departure from Jewish practice at Passover in which individual cups
were used. This would indicate that the use of one cup is not adiaphora or something indifferent.
There is one Savior, one body of Christ, one church and one cup. There is a deliberate symbolism
behind this use.
Mark 14:23 reads, “Then He took the cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to
them, and they all drank from it [singular].” R.C.H. Lenski writes, “Whether different cups were
22
The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 2007), 993.
30
used for the four or five times of drinking during the [Old Covenant] Passover, or whether only
one cup was used, which was refilled as needed, is not certain and quite immaterial. The point is
that Jesus instituted the Sacrament with the use of one cup, that he bade all the disciples drink
out of this one cup (Matthew), and that ‘they all did drink out of it’ (Mark).”23 The change from
one cup (as instituted by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ) to many tiny cups, because real wine
(which kills bacteria) is no longer used and thus a singular cup is seen as unsanitary, is a clear
violation of the regulative principle and the Westminster Standards. It unwittingly casts Christ in
a negative light and thus is sinful. The eternal Son of God knew all about bacteria and viruses,
yet required the use of one cup. Are modern anti-alcoholic professing Christians wiser and more
biblical than the Lord Himself? The accounts in Luke (“Likewise He also took the cup after
supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you’” [22:20]) and
1 Corinthians (“In the same manner He took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This do, as often as
you drink it, in remembrance of Me’” [11:25; see v. 26-28]), also teach the use of one cup of
wine which was passed around the circle of disciples.24
23
R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1961 [1946]), 623. William
Lane writes, “Jesus passed the common cup from which all were to drink, and spoke the second word of
institution” (The Gospel According to Mark [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 507.) Second Reformation
Presbyterians believed that Jesus chose one cup deliberately. All believers are saved and knit together by the
sinless blood of Jesus Christ. Regarding Matthew 26:27 James Morrison writes, “Most likely there would be but
one cup on the table, a true cup of fellowship and inter-communion, a ‘loving cup.’ Hence the appropriateness of
the article…. The Savior’s expression [“Drink ye all of it”] would lead us to the conclusion that the cup was
handed from one to another round the entire circle of the disciples” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
[Minneapolis: Klack & Klack, 1981 (1884)], 534).
24
The faithful Covenanter David Dickson notes that the Lord’s Supper should take place at a table: “The whole
doctrine [of the holy supper]…is not to be found in any one of the evangelists or apostles, but to be collected out
of all, each contributing their part to express the full meaning of the Lord’s spirit in this manner. Here we take up
only that which Matthew says. And first we observed that the celebration of the first sacramental Supper of the
Lord was joined in one continued supperly action with the sacrament of the Passover; our Lord herein declaring
the old Church, and the new to be one in him, and the sacraments of both to have himself for their signification,
for the sacrament began as they were eating, that is, sitting still at table and the supper not closed. [2.] For the
nature of the action it is required there be a table prepared, and elements ready to be made use of. For the first
Supper, which is our pattern was celebrated at the same table were at the Passover was celebrated, whereupon
there were yet remaining elements for eating, for this much is imported in As they were eating. [3.] It is requisite
also, that the minister of the gospel and his flock, so many of them as may communicate together at one table at
once, be assembled together and jointly set down together, for celebration of this holy feast, for so was it in the
pattern, as they were eating, they... [4.] The fittest posture of the communicants in the action of this holy feasting
is social sitting together at the Lord’s table; for this was the behaviour of the first communicants. The Lord began
to give the sacrament as they were eating, that is, as they yet continued sitting together socially at the table,
materials for eating not being removed, during which time men are said to be eating. [5.] The elements of this
holy feast are only bread and wine, for Christ took bread and the cup. [6.] The part of the minister is to take the
elements and by the word of institution and prayer to sanctify, separate and appoint them for this holy and
sacramental use, so much of them and in so far as they shall be employed by the communicants; for Christ
blessed the bread, blessed the cup, and gave thanks to the father.” (Matthew [Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1981
(1647)], 360). The elimination of the communion table was a natural result of the elimination of a single cup and
a single loaf.
31
Following these biblical accounts, the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of
God after quoting from Scripture says, “In like manner the minister is to take the cup, and say, in
these expressions, (or other the like, used by Christ or the apostle upon the same occasion):
‘According to the institution, command, and example of our Lord Jesus Christ, I take this cup,
and give it unto you; (here he [the minister] giveth it to the communicants;) This cup is the New
Testament in the blood of Christ, which is shed for the remission of the sins of many: drink ye all
of it.’”25 This position is also taught in the Confession of Faith 30:3: “The Lord Jesus hath, in
this ordinance, appointed his ministers to declare his word of institution to the people, to pray,
and bless the elements of bread and wine, and thereby to set them apart from a common to a holy
use; and to take and break the bread, to take the cup, and (they communicating also themselves)
to give both to the communicants; but to none who are not then present in the congregation.”
A.A. Hodge writes, “The true doctrine (1) As to the elements. These are—(a.) Bread… (b.)
Wine; that is oinos, the fermented juice of the grape. Matt. ix.17; John ii.3-10; Rom. xiv.21; Eph.
v.18; 1 Tim. iii.8; v.23; Titus ii.3. This is made essential by the command and example of Christ,
and by the uniform custom [i.e. practice] of the Christian Church from the beginning.”26
The great second Reformation Presbyterian theologian George Gillespie gives us the
common view of Presbyterians during the era when the Westminster Standards were composed:
That it is not indifferent for a Minister to give the Sacramentall Elements of Bread and Wine,
out of his owne hand, to every communicant; forasmuch as our Lord commanded his Apostles
to divide the Cup among them, that is, to reach it one to another, Luk. 22.17. Some of the
interpreters are of opinion; that the Cup spoken of by the Evangelist in that place is not the same
whereof hee speaketh after vers. 20. but they are greatly mistaken: for if it were as they thinke,
then Christ did againe drinke before his death, of that fruit of the Wine [sic], whereof we read
vers., 17.18. which is manifestly repugnant to his owne words. Wherefore, as Maldonat [com. in
Math. 26.27] observeth out of Augustine and Euthimius, there was but one Cup; whereof Luke
speaketh first by anticipation, and afterword in its owne proper place… Thus we conclude, that
when Christ commanded the Apostles to divide the Cup among them, the meaning of the words
can be no other than [sic] this, that they should give the Cup one to another, which is so plaine,
that a Jesuit [Maldon. ubi supra.] also maketh it to follow upon this command, that Christ did
reach the Cup non singulis sed uni, qui proximo, proximus sequenti, & deinceps daret [not to
each alone, but to the nearest one, the nearest one following, and in secession it was handed
over].27
This Cup is the communion, or fellowship, of believers (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16-17). Temperance
views coupled with the acceptance of the germ theory as the cause of disease contributed to the
25
Westminster Confession of Faith [Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1958], 386.
The Confession of Faith (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1958 [1869]), 358.
27
A Dispute Against the English-Popish Ceremonies, Obtruded upon the Church of Scotland: wherein not only our
owne Arguments against the same are strongly confirmed, but likewise the Answeres and Defences of our
Opposites, such as Hooker, Mortoune, Burges, Sprint, Paybody, Andrewes, Saravia, Tilen, Spotswood, Lindsey,
Forbesse, &c. particularly confuted (N.p.: n.p., 1637), Part IV, 22.
26
32
disuse of wine and the common cup. This change is an explicit rejection of our Lord's command
and example. It began sometime during the 1800s and did not become widespread until the first
decades of the 20th century. The arrogance and wicked legalism of the temperance movement
had reached in and even perverted the holy supper. In our day of serious doctrinal declension,
unfaithfulness to historic creeds and confessions and the widespread acceptance of doctrinal
pluralism in “conservative” Presbyterian bodies, people do not see the abandonment of real wine
and the common cup as a big deal. The thinking is that such things are adiaphora or minor. They
are not worth fighting about. This kind of thinking, which is very common, is dangerous and
sinful. When the Son of God tells us to do A, who are we to object or equivocate and do B
instead? Such thinking treats divine imperatives as optional and regards human traditions which
displace the commandments of God as trivial. If such thinking were acceptable to Jehovah,
would not Nadab and Abihu have been spared for offering a little strange fire (Lev. 10:1-3)? If
such procedures were a light thing in God's sight, would Jesus Christ have made such a big deal
about the ritual washings of the Pharisees (Mt. 15:1-9)? Certainly the religious washing of hands
is not as serious as changing the content and practice of the Lord's Supper (one of only two New
Testament sacraments). The legalism of the temperance movement has turned the Lord's Supper
in many churches into a symbol of a symbol. The joy, celebration and blessings set forth by real
wine have been exchanged for Welch’s Grape Juice. The symbolism of one cup full of wine
which sets forth the one Savior and His one act of atonement and the unity and fellowship
expressed by passing the cup one to another has been replaced by many plastic thimbles full of
grape juice. What then is the wise and safe thing to do? The only thing to do is to submit to what
Jesus commanded us without departing to the right or to the left. Can we go wrong by strictly
obeying the Word of God instead of changing sacred procedures and making lame excuses?
But we are told, “It would be wrong to tempt an ex-drunkard by placing real wine in front
of him at the holy supper. We have switched to grape juice out of love to our brother.” The
problem with this argument is that drunkards existed when our Lord instituted this holy
ordinance. If it is wrong to use real wine because ex-drunkards would be tempted today, then it
was wrong for Jesus Himself to use real wine at the original institution. People who use this
argument unwittingly accuse Christ of being unloving, careless and unwise. For this reason we
regard such an argument as sinful and careless. In addition, even though Paul makes it very clear
that some men in the Corinthian church were drunkards before their conversion (see 1
Corinthians 6:10-11, ([“drunkards… and such were some of you”]), that church still used real
wine in communion with no disapprobation (see 1 Cor. 11:21-34 where real wine is used but
drunkenness is condemned).
But what about the language used at the institution of the holy supper? Does not the
expression, the “fruit of the vine” (Mt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:18) refer to fresh grape juice
and not wine? No, it does not for a number of reasons: (1) It is a figure of speech for a finished
product. If we attempt to avoid the fact that Jesus used wine by taking the phrase literally, then
our Lord did not pass around a cup of grape juice but a cup of grapes. (2) Since the grape harvest
took place near the end of summer and the Passover took place six or more months later, it could
33
not have been fresh or unfermented grape juice. (3) The expression “fruit of the vine” is an
ancient traditional Jewish phrase found in the formal thanksgiving for wine (m. ber: 6:1). 28
R.C.H. Lenski makes these sobering comments,
When Matthew (26:29) reports Jesus as saying “this fruit of the vine,” i.e. that which the
Passover cup contained, he himself shuts out any and all other products of the vine save actual
wine and blocks all modern efforts to bring in unfermented grape juice, raisin tea, or diluted
grape syrup. The expression “fruit of the vine” is taken from the Hebrew pheri hagiphen, a
choice liturgical formula for wine. The matter is of utmost importance and lies beyond our
power to alter. To alter another's testament is to invalidate that document. Hence the use of any
other liquid than actual wine made from grapes—this alone was “wine” in Christ's day, this
alone was used in the Passover—renders the Sacrament invalid so that it ceases to be the
Sacrament. Christ's testament stands only as he made it, not as men today may alter it.29
We see that the R.P. Church’s associations with heretics and errorists has led to
unbiblical, sinful, legalistic practices to this very day.
The Testimony on Legalism
Under the Confession of Faith - Chapter 19: Of the Law of God, Section 6, the 1980
Testimony says on page 47: “Sinful legalism consists of mere outward conformity to the law in
the absence of love to the Lawgiver. It often involves the effort to gain salvation or reward
through such obedience, and the tendency to require of others a similar pattern of conduct. It may
28
This view is the consensus of virtually all reputable scholars. For example, Dunlap Moore writes, “The expression
the ‘fruit of the vine’ is employed by our Saviour in the synoptical Gospels to denote the element contained in
the cup of the Holy Supper. The fruit of the vine is literally the grape. But the Jews from time immemorial have
used this phrase to designate the wine partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of
the Sabbath. The Mishna (De. Bened, cap. 6, pars i) expressly states, that, in pronouncing blessings, ‘the fruit of
the vine’ is the consecrated expression for yayin… The Christian Fathers, as well as the Jewish rabbis, have
understood ‘the fruit of the vine’ to mean wine in the proper sense. Our Lord, in instituting the Supper after the
Passover, availed himself of the expression invariably employed by his countrymen in speaking of the wine of
the Passover. On other occasions, when employing the language of common life, he calls wine by its ordinary
name. (“Wine,” in Schaff, Encyclopedia, 2537, 2538. As quoted in Kenneth L. Gentry, The Christian and
Alcoholic Beverages, 55). Davis’s Dictionary concurs, “Fruit of the vine, the designation used by Jesus at the
institution of the Lord’s Supper…is the expression employed by the Jews from time immemorial for the wine
partaken of on sacred occasions, as at the Passover and on the evening of the Sabbath (Mishna, Berakoth, vi. 1).
The Greeks also used the term as a synonym of wine which was capable of producing intoxication (Herod i. 211,
212).” (Dictionary, 868, in Ibid.) The Greek scholar Heinrich Seesemann agrees: “It is obvious…that according
to custom Jesus was proffering wine in the cup over which He pronounced the blessing; this may be seen
especially from the solemn genema tes ampelou...which was borrowed from Judaism” (In Kittel, TDNT, 5:164;
in Ibid.).
29
The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel, 624.
34
also involve adding human requirements that evade God’s law. Mt. 23:13-31; Mark 7:1-33.” This
statement is sloppy and needs correction and clarification in a few areas.
First, the idea that it is wrong or legalistic to obey God to gain reward is simply not true.
If, by reward, the authors of the Testimony mean salvation or justification as the reward, then
such a statement would be correct. But since reward is listed after salvation, the Testimony is at
best ambiguous (whereas doctrinal statements ought to be clear and precise). The Bible teaches
very clearly that those who have already been justified by faith in Christ do receive a reward for
good works on the final day. These rewards are presented in Scripture as a motivation for
obedience, sanctification and furthering the kingdom of God. For example Paul writes, “For no
other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone
builds upon this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work
will become manifest: for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire
will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he
will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved
yet so as through fire” (1 Cor. 3:11-15). “Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord
comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the councils of the
hearts; and then each one’s praise will come from God” (1 Cor. 4:5). “For we must all appear
before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body,
according to what he has done, whether good or bad” (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Mt. 5:12, 6:20, 25:14-29;
Gal. 6:7-9; Col. 3:23-25; 2 Tim. 4:3; Rev. 20:12-13).
The fact that Paul makes it clear that the rewards received or a lack thereof have nothing
to do with whether or not a person is saved proves that we should keep in mind this testing
process on the final day as we seek to please Christ by our good works. Our good works must be
fully based on divine revelation, not human autonomy, legalism or pragmatism and must flow
out of the sincere desire to glorify Jesus Christ. David E. Garland writes,
Paul takes advantage of the Corinthians’ aspirations for reward, status, and praise by reorienting
their attention to the future judgment of God, he knows all things (Rom. 2:16) and judges
according to divine, not human, standards. He asserts that each individual will have his or her
work (not “works,” 3:13, 14, 15) assayed in a divine firestorm. In 9:1, he specifically refers to
the Corinthians as his “work in the Lord.” Whether one’s work will endure awaits more than the
test of time; it awaits the test of the end time. Each one’s workmanship will become
“manifest”..., for “the day...will make it known”... as good or bad. “The day” refers to the end
time judgment (cf. Rom. 13:12; 1 Cor. 1:8; 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; Phil. 1:6, 10; 2:16; 1 Thess. 5:2, 4;
2 Thess. 2:2).30
But (someone may object), if God rewards Christians for their good works achieved after
justification, does this not involve us in some kind of system of merit at least with regard to
sanctification? There are a number of reasons why the rewards that Christ bestows upon
believers on the final day are not based on strict merit but are actually the rewards of grace. (1)
30
1 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 117.
35
Strictly speaking, merit denotes a work that, because of its own intrinsic value, justly requires a
reward or payment. But the good works that Christians do are only acceptable to God in and
through the Mediator Jesus Christ. This is absolutely necessary because a believer’s works are
never perfect or pure, but are always tainted with sin (Rom. 7:18; Gal. 5:17-18; Isa. 64:6). The
fact that all of our worship, law keeping, charity and acts of compassion and mercy must be a
offered to God through Christ since we are corrupt, polluted and depraved, completely removes
all assertions of intrinsic value. We are therefore operating in the sphere of grace, not merit. (2)
The Bible teaches that everything we have and can possibly do is already owed to God and thus
merits nothing. “So likewise you, when you have done all those things which are commanded,
say, ‘We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do’” (Lk. 17:10; see
Rom. 8:12). (3) A believer’s sanctification and every good work are gifts of grace (Jas. 1:17;
Phil. 2:13; 2 Cor. 3:5). Since God prepares good works for each believer beforehand (Eph. 2:10),
enables him to perform good works due to the efficacy of Jesus’ redemptive work (Rom. 6:4ff; 1
Cor. 1:30-31) and the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Christian has no reason to boast over his
sanctification. “If I am wicked, woe to me; even if I am righteous, I cannot lift up my head” (Job
10:15). (4) The rewards that God bestows upon believers for their good works are so magnificent
and out of proportion to the accomplishments of the saints on earth that it is clear that grace is
operative in the rewards. God is not handing out payments to servants, but bestowing a
wonderful inheritance to His own children (Rom. 8:18; 2 Cor. 4:17) on account of the blood of
Christ.
The best way to understand God’s heavenly rewards towards his children for doing good
is to view them as acts of God’s kindness and mercy. The key to understanding these rewards is
not intrinsic human merit but the sovereign good pleasure of God. God wanted to bestow these
gifts upon His children and thus graced them with the will and ability to do good works and
rewarded them. To speak of intrinsic human merit is to speak of God as a debtor and under
obligation to man. This we deny. God is bound by His promise and not human merit. “[W]e do
not deny that God from the time he gave the promise is necessarily bound to fulfill it and thus is
made in a certain measure a debtor, not to us, but to himself and his own faithfulness.”31
The Protestant doctrine that the heavenly rewards that God gives Christians for good gifts
are gifts of grace does not mean that believers are not valid secondary moral agents; nor does it
mean that believers do not actively cooperate in their sanctification; nor does it mean that there is
not a direct correlation between the good works done on earth and the rewards given in heaven.
God is just and not arbitrary in bestowing these rewards. The point needs to be emphasized that
these rewards are based on God’s promise, a promise which flows from God’s grace and mercy.
God is obligated to give these rewards only because He, of His own good pleasure, decided to set
up a system of rewards for good deeds upon earth. The whole idea of merit implies an obligation
on God that, apart from His promise, is simply not there. God does not owe man anything. Good
deeds, apart from grace, merit nothing. Calvin writes,
31
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed), 2:714.
36
Only let us not imagine a reciprocal relation of merit and reward which is the error into which
the sophists fell, for want of considering the end which we have stated…. Nothing is clearer,
than that the promise of a reward to good works is designed to afford some consolation to the
weakness of our own flesh, but not to inflate our minds with vain-glory. Whoever, therefore,
infers from this that there is any merit in works or balances the work against the rewards, errs
very widely from the true design of God.32
God receives all the glory. When the saints worship God in heaven they “cast their crowns before
the throne” (Rev. 4:10).
Second, we find a serious problem with the sentence, “It [sinful legalism] may also
involve adding human requirements that evade God’s law. Mt. 23:13-31; Mark 7:1-23.” While it
is certainly true that adding human requirements that evade God’s law is wrong, the statement
could easily be interpreted to mean that we can add our own requirements to the law as long as
they do not contradict or evade what the law says. This would be an endorsement of popery and
prelacy and a contradiction of sola Scriptura. The Protestant or biblical doctrine of sola
Scriptura teaches that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. It is infallible, absolutely
authoritative, sufficient, complete, perfect and perspicuous. Therefore, it is the sole authority for
faith (i.e. everything we are required to believe) and life (i.e. ethics or everything we are required
to do). All men are forbidden to add or detract from it whether by human traditions, or so-called
new revelations of the Spirit, or by the decrees of councils, synods, presbyteries or general
assemblies (see Westminster Shorter Catechism Q&A 3, Confession of Faith 1:2; First Helvitic
Confession Art. 1; French Confession Art. 5; Belgic Confession Art. 7; Second Helvitic
Confession I.2.3., II 4.5.).
An Episcopalian could adopt the Testimony’s statement because they allow the church to
make up rules with the qualification: “yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is
contrary to God’s Word written” (from Article 20—of the Authority of the Church). In Article 34
– of the Traditions of the Church we read, “that Traditions and Ceremonies…may be changed
according to…men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.” The focus of the
39 Articles is on rites and ceremonies; however, the principle is the same. The wording of the
32
Institutes, II, xviii, 4 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960). Calvin adds these excellent comments, “Scripture
shows what all our works deserve when it states that they cannot bear God’s gaze because they are full of
uncleanness. What, then, will the perfect observance of the law deserve, if any such can be found, when
Scripture enjoins us to consider ourselves unprofitable servants even when we do everything required of us [Lk.
17:10]? For to the Lord we have given nothing unrequired but have only carried out services owed, for which no
thanks are due. Yet those good works which he has bestowed upon us the Lord calls ‘ours,’ and testifies they not
only are acceptable to him but also will have their reward. It is our duty in return to be aroused by so great a
promise, to take courage not to weary in well doing [cf. Gal. 6:9; 2 Th. 3:13], and to receive God’s great
kindness with true gratefulness. There is no doubt that whatever is praiseworthy in works is God’s grace; there is
not a drop that we ought by rights to ascribe to ourselves. If we truly and earnestly recognize this, not only will
all confidence in merit vanish, but the very notion…. Good works, then, are pleasing to God and are not
unfruitful for their doers. But they receive by way of reward the most ample benefits of God, not because they so
deserve but because God’s kindness has of itself set this value on them” (Institutes III:XV:3 [Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1960], 1:790-791).
37
Testimony allows the R.P. Church to add human requirements to the law such as total abstinence
and the teaching that it is immoral to manufacture or sell alcoholic beverages.
We must keep in mind that what the law allows, we have no authority to disallow. In
addition, when Jesus and His disciples refused to wash their hands before eating as a religious
requirement or ritual, this tradition of the fathers did not involve anything that evaded any
specific law except the divine imperative or requirement not to add or detract from the law
(Deut. 4:2; 12:32; cf. Prov. 30:6; etc.). It violated sola Scriptura and thus had to be disobeyed.
When our Lord went on to give an example of how a human tradition was used to circumvent the
divine requirement (see Mt. 15:3-6; Mk. 7:8-9), He made it clear that any human additions to the
law involve a setting aside of the law in some sense. This point is especially clear in Mark 7:8-9
where the ritual washing of pitchers and cups (acts which in themselves are not intrinsically
sinful) are said to be responsible for setting aside the commandment of God. Christ’s charge
would be vigorously and indignantly denied by the scribes and modern Presbyterians who add
traditions such as abstinence, women deacons (in the same office as male deacons), grape juice
in communion, uninspired hymns, man-made holy days, women’s presbyterials, etc. But Jesus
Himself makes it crystal clear that all such human additions are sinful and have an automatic
tendency to push out and replace the Old Testament laws which are what God really requires. If
there are R.P. Churchmen who want to argue that the Testimony at this point is being
misunderstood on my part, then: (1) they ought to rewrite it so it is not easily misinterpreted; and
(2) they need to remove the many human traditions that have become widely accepted by the
R.P. Church.
Liberty of Conscience
Under Chapter 20: Of Christian Liberty and Liberty of Conscience, Section 2 (on page
49) we find a careless statement that needs qualification because it can be used to justify
unbiblical practices: “Although conscience it is not infallible, a person should not do what he
believes to be wrong.” This statement could be interpreted to justify people not doing things
which are required in the Word of God. For example, evangelicals commonly appeal to this kind
of a statement as a reason for not using real wine in communion. It is said that using real wine
would cause certain believers to violate their conscience. Most evangelicals think it is wrong to
believe in and obey the fourth commandment, so they don’t. Liberty of conscience, however,
does not mean that divine imperative can be ignored or disobeyed because Christians have an
incorrect interpretation of Scripture. If God requires us to do something in His Word (obey the
first day Sabbath, sing only Psalms in worship, use real [alcoholic] wine in communion, etc.), it
is wrong and sinful to disobey that imperative or approved historical example, no matter what
our conscience tells us. An incorrect conscience does not have the ability to make something that
is wrong, right. There is such a thing as false subjective guilt that is rooted in ignorance and false
teaching. A Roman Catholic who feels guilty because he forgot to pray to the virgin Mary or a
Mafia member who feels guilty because he botched the hit are obvious examples. Therefore, sin
38
is not a matter of subjective opinion or of conscience. Sin is the transgression of the law of God
(1 Jn. 3:4). Man’s opinion cannot make something right or moral that God has said is wrong or
immoral.
The only passage cited by the Testimony that could be applied to their statement is
Romans 14:14, 23: “I am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself: but
to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean…he who doubts is condemned
if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.” The situation
here is that some of the Jewish believers could not eat meats that were not properly drained or
were unclean according to abrogated ceremonial ordinances. The other issue that bothered their
consciences was eating meat offered to idols. These were matters that had been rendered
adiaphora or indifferent by the coming of Christ. In other words, believers were not making up
rules out of their imaginations but were following a conscience raised and developed under the
Old Testament law including the ceremonial ordinances. They were so used to obeying these
divine ordinances they had difficulty transitioning to the New Covenant era. Thus, a believer sins
when he does what is not approved in his conviction and faith. This truth, however, can only be
applied to areas of adiaphora where the behavior in itself is neither forbidden nor required. In
addition, Paul makes it very clear that the weak brother cannot impose his ignorant views on
others in the church (Rom. 14:2).
Pictures of Christ
Under Chapter 21: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day Section 1 on pages 50-51
the 1980 Testimony says, “The use of pictures or images of Jesus in worship, or as aids to
devotion, is unscriptural. The Scriptures do not provide a sufficient description of his physical
appearance to picture him. The work of artists should not be received as accurate representations
of his person. Exod. 20:4-5.” The first sentence in the statement is totally correct. Any use of
pictures, icons or statues of Jesus as aids to devotion is idolatry. The problem with the rest of the
statement on the use of images of Christ is its ambiguity. We do not find an unequivocal
condemnation of all pictures or images of our Savior. The impression left by the testimony is that
while it is wrong to pray to or worship or adore a picture of our Lord, the use of pictures of the
Redeemer in general may be okay as long as we understand that we do not know what He really
looks like. This position leaves open the use of “Sunday school” materials in church as well as
religious artwork in the home (e.g., the last supper). In 1996 in one of the very first R.P.C.N.A.
internet discussion groups (moderated by Rev. Doug Comin) when the topic of the use of
pictures of Christ came up, a clear majority of R.P. ministers defended using pictures or images
of Jesus. This seems to indicate that the Testimony’s ambiguity or unwillingness to condemn all
use of pictures of the Savior was deliberate. This unwillingness is an explicit violation of the
Westminster Standards, the teaching of Scripture and sanctified reason.
The Larger Catechism unequivocally condemns all use of images of Christ. In the answer
to question 109 we read, “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are,…the making any
39
representation of God, of all or of any of the three persons, either inwardly in our mind, or
outwardly in any kind of image or likeness of any creature whatsoever….” This statement is
unambiguous and to the point. It is far better than the Testimony’s statement which at best
muddies the water and at worse tolerates a species of idolatry. But, it is argued, we are not
picturing the divinity of Christ, only His humanity. What could be wrong with the educational or
artistic use of such pictures? We are not bowing down or worshiping such an image. There are a
number of reasons why such thinking (which is mainstream among modern “conservative”
Presbyterian communions) is unbiblical and irrational.
Jesus is both God and man in one person and thus He is totally unique. Consequently, any
picture of our Lord automatically would be devotional and religious in nature. This has been the
view of orthodox theologians for nearly 2000 years. As Thomas Watson notes,
If it be not lawful to make the image of God the Father, yet may we not make an image of Christ,
he took upon him the nature of man? No! Epiphanius, seeing an image of Christ hanging in a
church, break it in pieces. It is Christ’s Godhead united to his manhood, that makes him to be
Christ; therefore, to picture his manhood, when we cannot picture his Godhood, is a sin,
because we make him to be but half Christ—we separate what God has joined, we leave out that
which is the chief thing which makes him to be Christ.33
James Durham concurs, “It is not lawful and to have pictures of Jesus Christ…because, if
it does not stir up devotion, it is vain, if it does stir up devotion, it is a worshiping by an image or
picture, and so a palpable breach of the second commandment.”34 Thomas Ridgley agrees
saying, “But whatever of Christ comes within the reach of the art of man to delineate or describe,
is only his human nature, which is not the object of divine Adoration; so that the practice of
describing him in the way mentioned tends rather to debase, then to give us raised and becoming
conceptions of him as such.” Although Jesus had a real human body and soul (1 Jn. 1:14) “yet his
human nature subsists in his divine person, which no picture can represent (Psa. 45:2).”35
Thus, we see that all pictures or images of the Savior implicitly promote the ancient
heresy of Nestorius who separated the two natures of Christ—the human from the divine.
Because all images of Jesus portray Him as infinitely less than He was, is and ever shall be, they
present a false Christ and detract from His divine glory.
This theological observation is one of the primary reasons a major church council
(Constantinople, A.D. 754) decreed,
If any person shall divide human nature, united to the Person of God the Word; and, having it
only in the imagination of his mind, shall therefore, attempt to paint the same in an Image; let
him be holden as accursed. If any person shall divide Christ, being but one, into two persons;
placing on the one side of the Son of God, and on the other side the son of Mary; neither doth
33
The Ten Commandments (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1692] 1959), 62.
From The Law Unsealed: or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments.
35
Fisher’s Catechism, from Q&A #51, answer to subquestion #9.
34
40
confess the continual union that is made; and by that reason doth paint in an Image of the son of
Mary, as subsisting by himself; let him be accursed. If any person shall paint in an Image the
human nature, being deified by the uniting thereof to God the Word; separating the same as it
were from the Godhead assumpted and deified; let him be holden accursed.
Regarding this council Philip Schaff writes,
The council, appealing to the second commandment and other scripture passages denouncing
idolatry (Rom. 1:23, 25; John 4:24), and opinions of the Fathers (Epiphanius, Eusebius, Gregory
Nazianzen, Chysostom, etc.), condemned and forbade the public and private worship of sacred
images on pain of deposition and excommunication…It denounced all religious representations
by painter or sculptor as presumptuous, pagan and idolatrous. Those who make pictures of the
Savior, who is God as well as man in one inseparable person, either limit the incomprehensible
Godhead to the bounds of creative flesh, or confound his two natures like Eutychus, or separate
them, like Nestorius, or deny his Godhead, like Arius; and those who worship such a picture are
guilty of the same heresy and blasphemy.36
Pictures of Christ are lies of the imagination that pervert and degrade the Scriptural
doctrine of our Lord. We are to remember our precious Savior not by crass artistic fantasies but
by celebrating the Lord’s supper, attending the means of grace and meditating on Scripture. Paul
says that “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God” (Rom. 10:17). Jesus tells us
that sanctification comes by means of God’s Word. “Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is
truth” (Jn. 17:17). Artistic impressions of God’s Son may stir the emotions. They may bring a
tear to the eye or joy to the heart. But, since they are the figments of man’s mind, they cannot
sanctify or increase our faith. Indeed, as non-commanded violations of the expressed teaching of
the Bible they are destructive of faith and sanctification. “Little children, keep yourselves from
idols” (1 Jn. 5:21).
In addition, since we do not have any detailed descriptions of Jesus, all pictures of the
Savior are speculative, false representations. While one can fantasize and be creative in art of
past historical figures, it is totally inappropriate and a violation of the second commandment to
fantasize about the divine-human Mediator. The Son of God is not a character that we are
permitted to fictionalize. What would the holy apostles think of the many perverse images of the
Savior that are common today (e.g., the blond, blue-eyed effeminate Jesus, the black power
Jesus, the Hollywood hippie Jesus, the evangelical movie Jesus, the bookstore muscleman
Jesus)? Peter and John would be totally shocked by such irreverent, disrespectful, unbiblical,
humanistic, blasphemous garbage. Further, because artists cannot form a faithful representation
of the Savior's physical appearance, their renditions of the Lord inevitably are influenced by their
theology and worldview. Many of the popular paintings, etchings and drawings that are seen in
books and family Bibles today are products of 19th century Liberalism, “Christian” feminism,
Arminianism and pietistic forms of antinomianism. These false theological systems present a
36
Phillip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987 [1910]), 4:457-458.
41
one-sided, distorted picture of our Lord. He usually is presented as the gentle Jesus—the meek
and humble teacher who emphasized the love and Fatherhood of God, who was a friendly
teacher of ethics and who never became angry with sinners or preached about sin, judgment and
the wrath to come. J.G. Vos writes, “Perhaps more people living today have derived their ideas of
Jesus Christ from these typically ‘liberal’ pictures of Jesus then have derived their ideas of Jesus
from the Bible itself. Such people inevitably think of Jesus as a human person, rather than
thinking of him according to the biblical teaching as a divine person with the human nature. The
inevitable fact of the popular acceptance of pictures of Jesus is to over emphasize his humanity
and to forget or neglect his deity (which of course no picture can portray).”37
The purpose of a doctrinal testimony is to uphold all the previous theological attainments
of our spiritual forefathers. If additions or changes are made, it is for the purpose of clarification
and precision. As theological battles with heretics and the heterodox occur through history,
various doctrines come into sharper focus and the church’s testimony builds on what has been
achieved. A church’s testimony should improve over time. It should become better, not worse.
Unfortunately, we are seeing a pattern developing in our analysis of the 1980 Testimony that is
troubling. We are finding statements that are poorly written and ambiguous, as well as statements
that are much worse than previous testimonies. When a statement on pictures of Christ published
in 1980 is much less clear and biblical than a statement from A.D. 754, we can see that in this
area declension has set in and is being tolerated.38
37
Johannes G. Vos, The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and
Reformed, 202), 292. James Durham writes, “And if it be said man’s soul cannot be painted, but his body may,
and yet that picture representeth a man; I answer, it doth so, because he has but one nature, and what representeth
that representeth the person; but it is not so with Christ: his Godhead is not a distinct part of the human nature, as
the soul of man is (which is necessarily supposed in every living man), but a distinct nature, only united with the
manhood in that one person, Christ, who has no fellow; therefore what representeth him must not represent a
man only, but must represent Christ, Immanuel, God-man, otherwise it is not his image. Beside, there is no
warrant for representing him in his manhood; nor any colorable possibility of it, but as men fancy; and shall that
be called Christ's portraiture? Would that be called any other man’s portraiture which were drawn at men’s
pleasure, without regard to the pattern? Again, there is no use of it; for either that image behooved to have but
common estimation with other images, and that would wrong Christ, or a peculiar respect of reverence, and so it
sinneth against the commandment that forbiddeth all religious reverence to images, but he being God and so the
object of worship, we must either divide his natures, or say, that image or picture representeth not Christ.” From
the Law Unsealed: or, A Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments.
38
For modern Protestants to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture and history as if they were immune to the dangers
of superstition and idolatry is arrogant, foolish and deadly. The papal church did not develop into the demonic
monstrosity it is now overnight. But, as Paul warned, “A little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Cor. 5:6). The
rather common practice today (even in conservative Presbyterian churches) of using pictures of Jesus in
educational materials (e.g., books, videos, Sunday school materials) violates the second commandment, teaches a
false doctrine of the Messiah, corrupts the worship of God, is blatantly disrespectful to the second person of the
Trinity and, thus, should be hated and shunned by all Bible believing Christians. The forefathers of the
Calvinistic wing of the Reformation scrupulously refrained, as a matter of principle, from the use of pictures of
Christ. Note the words of John Knox from the “Book of Discipline, Third Head” (1560), “For but your Honours
be assuredly persuaded, that there shall God’s wrath reign, not only upon the blind and obstinate idolater, but
also upon the negligent suffers of the same; especially if God have armed their hands with power to suppress
42
The Civil Magistrate
Under Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate Section 3 the 1980 Testimony says, “We reject
the portion of Section 3 after the colon” (page 60; emphasis in the original). Let us examine
section 3 and see exactly what the testimony repudiates as unscriptural. The Confession of Faith
23:3 says,
The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the Administration of the Word and sacraments,
or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: [everything from this point on is rejected by
the 1980 Testimony] yet he hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace
be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies
and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or
reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, Administered, and observed. For the better
effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that
whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.
In addition, under Confession of Faith Chapter 31: Of Synods and Councils Section 2, the
1980 Testimony on page 82 reads, “We reject paragraph 2 of the Confession of Faith. No
ecclesiastical authority is placed in the hands of private Christians or civil rulers; church
judicatories are subordinate only to Christ Jesus. They appoint, by and exclusive rights, their
own times and places of meeting and adjournment. Mt. 22:21" (emphasis in the original).
The section emphatically rejected by the testimony is as follows,
2. As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and
advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the
ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon
delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies. Isa. 49:23; 1 Tim. 2:1-2;
2 Chron. 19:8-11; 2 Chron. 29th and 30th Chapters; Mt. 2:4-5; Prov. 11:14; Acts 15:2, 4, 22-23,
25.
It is clear that the 1980 Testimony regards the Confession of Faith as teaching
Erastianism and thus emphatically rejects the original Confession. (Erastianism is the claim that
the civil magistrate or the state has supreme authority over the church [i.e. the church is not a
separate covenantal sphere directly under the rule of Christ separate from the state, but is an
inferior authority under the state]). Thus they are falsely accusing the Second Reformation
Presbyterians who had members at the Assembly and who approved the Confession of Faith for
the Scottish church in 1648 as being blatantly unscriptural regarding the civil magistrate’s role.
such abominations. By idolatry we understand, the Mass, invocation of saints, adoration of images, and the
keeping and retaining of the same; and, finally, all honouring of God not contained in his holy Word.”
43
In addition, they are accusing all Covenanters prior to 1980 of holding to unscriptural, Erastian
views for they apparently did not have the theological skill and historical wisdom to reject these
sections of the Confession.39 This is a serious charge which is both unscriptural and reveals a
great deal of ignorance regarding church history.
39
The absurdity of the 1980 Testimony’s rejection of the original Confession on the magistrate is demonstrated in the
fact that the Scottish Presbyterians were the most anti-Erastian Christians on the face of the earth. Sherman
Isbell writes, “[At the Reformation in] Scotland the civil magistrate was not accorded a supremacy over the
Church, such as was claimed for the prince in England. In 1559 the Reformers told the Queen Regent that while
she ruled in the temporal kingdom she was but a servant, and no Queen; in Christ’s kingdom, she had no
preeminence or authority above the Church—Christ being the Church’s only lawgiver. And the First Book of
Discipline (1560) placed in the hands of the Church’s elders and ministers the authority to judge in the Church of
God, and to oversee the manners of all men within their charge, including rulers as well as the other estates of
the realm. This independence of the Church’s discipline from control by the civil authorities was coordinated
with a recognition in the Scots’ Confession that the preservation and purification of religion is particularly the
duty of magistrates, who are to suppress idolatry and superstition. Accordingly the Reformation Parliament
authorized the confession as doctrine grounded upon the word of God, abolished the jurisdiction of the Pope, and
annulled past acts of Parliament not agreeing with the Scriptures and the new confession.
In the first Chapter of the Second Book of Discipline (1578) ecclesiastical power is declared to be distinct
from civil power, though both are given by God for the common end of advancing God’s glory and for
promoting godliness among the citizenry. Authority in the Church flows immediately from God and the Mediator
Christ to the teachers and elders who exercise it, there being no temporal head of the Church on earth except
Christ, whose voice is heard in the Scriptures. The civil power and the spiritual power are to assist one another,
the magistrate not exercising Church censures or prescribing any rule how it should be done, but punishing
transgressors by civil means, and commanding the ministers to follow the rule of Scripture in the application of
discipline. Ministers are to teach a magistrate what God’s word requires of him in the exercise of the civil
function.
The tenth Chapter calls upon the Christian magistrate to foster and defend the Church against enemies, to
inflict civil punishments against those who do not obey the censures of the Church, and to see that sufficient
provision is made for the ministry, the schools and the poor (see Poor Relief). When the Church is corrupt, the
example of the godly kings of Judah sanctions intervention by the Christian magistrate, yet where the ministry is
acting faithfully, godly princes are to respect their teaching of the Word of God.
Limitations to the king’s power, and his accountability to the people he rules, were espoused in George
Buchanan’s De Jure Regni (E, 1579; ET, 1680). The endeavor by James VI and Charles I to assert moral control
over the CofS (see Melville, Andrew), and to intrude ceremonies and bishops after the model of English
episcopacy (see Worship; Five Articles of Perth; Book of Canons), drew forth a large literature in protests.
Moreover, at the Westminster Assembly (1643), the Scottish commissioners George Gillespie and Samuel
Rutherford responded to the Erastian argument that government and discipline in the Church are the prerogatives
of the Christian magistrate rather than of church officers. The Presbyterian claim for both the independent
jurisdiction of ecclesiastical government, and also an obligation of nations and civil rulers to seek in their own
sphere to promote the welfare of true religion and the prosperity of the Church of Christ, received classic
expression in David Calderwood’s Altare Damascenum (1623; Leiden, 1708), George Gillespie’s Aaron’s Rod
Blossming (L, 1646), Samuel Rutherford’s The Divine Right of Church-Government and Excommunication (L,
1646), The Free Disputation Against A Pretended Liberty of Conscience (E, 1649), and Lex Rex (E, 1644), James
Durham’s A Treatise Concerning Scandal (E, 1659), and John Brown of Wamphray’s Libri Due contra
Volzogenium et Velthusium (Amsterdam, 1670)” (“Church and State (Theological Questions)” in Gen. Eds.
David F. Wright, David C. Lachman, Donald E. Meek, Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology
[Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 180-181).
44
If held to consistently, this rejection of the Confession would lead to a rejection of
national covenanting and the establishment principle. In national covenanting, the civil
authorities as well as the church of Christ come to a biblical agreement to adhere to and enforce a
system of doctrine or a particular interpretation of Christianity. This system of doctrine or
confessional expression of the Christian faith must be founded solely on the Word of God. It,
however, can and should have specific applications to the period in which it was adopted. The
civil authorities agreed to uphold the Christian law-order and confessional expression adopted
within their particular God-given area of authority. The church must uphold the covenant which
includes a Christian law-order and particular confessional expression of faith within their God
ordained sphere of authority. If the civil magistrate breaks the covenant which has been made
with both God and the citizens of that nation or kingdom, the church has a moral and covenantal
obligation to call that magistrate to repentance. If he refuses to repent, the church must appeal to
lesser civil magistrates to remove that covenant breaker from office.
If the church departs from its covenant obligations by Advocating heresy or serious error;
or if there is some kind of severe spiritual or religious crisis in the land that needs immediate
attention by church authorities, the civil magistrate has the right and the duty to ask the church to
convene a synod or national assembly to address the violations of Scripture or the national crisis.
The godly Christian civil magistrate can only ask the church to do its job in accordance with the
Word of God within its God ordained sphere of authority. The authors of the Westminster
Confession well understood that the civil magistrate cannot call a synod for any reason at all and
that the church has the right or authority to reject the civil magistrate’s request if it is arbitrary,
unjust, unnecessary or unbiblical. When the Scottish church adopted the Confession of Faith in
1647, it was very careful to disavow any Erastian interpretations of the Confession (31:2),
especially respecting the magistrate’s right of calling synods.40 As Robert Shaw notes,
The Confession specifies certain means which the civil magistrate may lawfully employ for
effecting the objects mentioned: ‘For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods.’
From this it cannot be inferred that ministers have not a power to meet of themselves in synods
and assemblies, without being called by the civil magistrate; for in Chapter 31 it is expressly
declared that they have such power ‘of themselves, and by virtue of their office.’ The General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, indeed, were of the opinion that, in the Chapter now
referred to, the Confession is not sufficiently explicit in regard to the intrinsic power of the
Church to call her own assemblies; and accordingly, in their Act of 1647, by which the
40
In the Act of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland approving the Confession of Faith (August 27, 1647)
we find the following statement: “It is further declared, That the Assembly understandeth some parts of the
second article of the thirty-one Chapter only of kirks not settled, or constituted in point of government: And that
although, in such kirks, a synod of Ministers, and other fit persons, may be called by the Magistrate’s authority
and nomination, without any other call…” (The Confession of Faith [Glasgow: Three Presbyterian Publications,
1983], 15).
Note that when the Church of Scotland, in 1643, commissioned a delegation to the Westminster Assembly,
no such act had been passed by the Church of England. The Westminster Assembly met, not upon authority of
the Church of England, but upon authority of the Long Parliament.
45
confession was approved, they expressly declared that they understood that part of it ‘only of
kirks not settled or constituted in point of government’; and that explanation must apply equally
to the section now before us. Our Confession, then, does not assert that the magistrate may
exercise this power on all occasions, and in all circumstances, or whenever there are any evils of
a religious kind to correct. It is sufficient that there may be times and circumstances in which he
made warrantably exercise this power. When the state of the nation as well as of the Church
may be convulsed, and its convulsions may be in a great degree owing to religious disorders, it
is surely a high duty incumbent on him to take such a step, provided he finds it practicable and
advisable. And such was the state of matters when the Westminster Assembly was convoked by
the Parliament of England.41
In other words, if the Scottish church in the 1640s had adopted in 1980 Testimony there
would be no Confession of Faith to repudiate for there would have been no Westminster
Assembly to produce the Westminster Standards.42
Although Erastians and many Independent sectarians have viewed this part of the
Confession as teaching that the civil magistrate has a controlling power over the church of
Christ, we must not interpret it in a manner that explicitly contradicts the Confession itself
(which teaches the freedom and independence of the church) and the great body of material
written on the civil magistrate by great Presbyterian scholars in the 17th century. The Confession
here speaks of an explicitly Christian civil magistrate who is acting within his lawful, God-given
41
Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 318-319. James
Bannerman writes, “These two institutions, the Church and the state, equally of Divine appointment, have a
separate existence, a distinct character, and an independent authority [both are directly under Christ the King];
and that it is impossible to…make the one dependent upon the other…. Grant that the Church and state are thus
separate and independent, and it is plainly impossible that the one should be merged in the other, or the office of
the one discharged by the other, unless either the ecclesiastical or the civil society is to sacrifice something of the
proper character and essential nature that belong to it. It is competent for the two to enter into connection upon
equal terms; it is not competent for them to enter into connection through the surrender, on either side, of an
independence that essentially and inalienably appertains to each.
There is one fundamental condition, then, essential to an alliance between the Church and state, and on
which both parties in the alliance have equally a right to insist: the condition, namely, that the Church and the
state, as distinct societies, shall be recognised as mutually independent in their existence and entire offices and
functions. Without this, there can be no true or scriptural alliance; and any connection formed must involve an
Erastian or Popish encroachment on the one side or other” (The Church of Christ, 1:102, 110-111; see William
Cunningham, Works, 4:196-210).
42
Most modern Presbyterians are completely unaware that the Westminster Assembly was a civilly convened synod.
Its determinations were advisory and provisional until the churches of the three nations (England, Scotland and
Ireland) formally adopted them. The adopting act for each part of covenanted uniformity appears at the
beginning of each section of the Free Presbyterian edition of the Standards. For example, it may be noted that
Scotland adopted The Directory for the Publick Worship of God (1645) with the proviso that its failure to
mention the use of a table for the Administration of the Lord’s supper, which the Scots argued was an important
part of the sacramental administration (cf. Gillespie, Miscellany Questions, 218-230), would not be to the
prejudice of the common usage of the church.”
46
sphere of authority to promote the true Christian religion in his realm. The civil magistrate is to
be a nursing father to the church (Isa. 49:23).
The Christian civil magistrate is bound to uphold and obey the Bible. When nations and
rulers are favored with the light of the gospel, they have a duty to do everything they can within
the limits of their sphere of authority to promote the true religion. The Word of God does not
limit the magistrate’s authority to the secular affairs of men or the second table of the law. If one
denies that the civil magistrate can take action in matters of religion, then one must deny the
moral law itself which orders the magistrate to punish and suppress idolatry (Deut. 13:2, 5, 9),
blasphemy (Lev. 24: 15-16), false prophecy or publicly advocating a false religion (Deut. 13:118), sorcery (Ex. 22:18), witchcraft (Deut.18:10) and the like.
Given the fact that the Confession carefully places limits upon the civil magistrate, noting
that the civil magistrate does not hold a position of supremacy over the church (e.g., 25:6 reads,
“there is no other head of the Church, but the Lord Jesus Christ”) and the Scottish General
Assembly’s clarification of the meaning of 23:3, the 1980 Testimony’s rejection of this section is
baffling. One would at least expect an explanation or footnote explaining this rejection but there
is nothing.
There is a statement that says, “No ecclesiastical authority is placed in the hands of
private Christians or civil rulers; church judicatories are subordinate only to Christ Jesus. They
appoint, by an exclusive right, their own times and places of meeting and adjournment.” But this
statement does not disagree with the Confession properly interpreted. The Second Reformation
divines taught that the magistrate has no power circa sacra (i.e. concerning sacred things) but not
in sacris (i.e. in sacred things). His positive role can take many forms, as long as it does not
presume to invade the realm of doctrine, worship, church government or church discipline. In a
crisis where heresy is spreading, he can tell the church to teach the truth or settle doctrinal
disputes. (In other words, he is commanding the church to obey Scripture and do its job). When
false worship and idolatry are on the rise, he can tell the church to clean the filth out of God’s
temple. He can command the church to govern itself according to Scripture and exercise proper
discipline. Once again, he is only telling the church to do its God-given job and obey Scripture.
He is not interfering with the church’s courts. He can never determine doctrine, impose manners
or modes of worship (or even days of fasting and thanksgiving apart from the church’s consent),
regulate her government, or restrict her discipline.
The 1980 Testimony’s rejection of the Confession’s teaching on the magistrate and his
obligations (circa sacra) toward upholding the true Christian religion is not only historically in
error but also explicitly contradicts the teaching of the Word of God. In 2 Chronicles 24:4-14,
Joash the King told the priests and Levites to go out and collect tithes (Ex. 30:11-16) in order to
repair the temple. When this did not occur he spoke to the high priest Jehoida saying, “Why hast
thou not required of the Levites to bring out of Judah and out of Jerusalem the collection,
according to the commandment of Moses the servant of the LORD?…” (v. 6). Here we have the
King telling the high priest, the leader of the priests and Levites, to do his job and make sure
those in charge of the spiritual affairs of the people obey the Bible. In verses 8-10 we read,
47
“Then at the king’s command they made a chest and set it outside at the gate of the house of the
LORD. And they made a proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem to bring to the LORD the
collection that Moses the servant of God had imposed on Israel in the wilderness. Then all the
leaders and all the people rejoiced, brought their contributions, and put them into the chest until
all had given.”
The Bible explicitly teaches that if the church is being unbiblical or refuses to obey God’s
law, a Christian civil magistrate can tell the ecclesiastical leaders to repent and obey the Word of
God. The king did not interfere in ecclesiastical affairs or take upon himself the church’s
responsibility, he simply told the ecclesiastical leaders to obey God’s Word. That this whole
endeavor had God’s approval and is recorded for our edification is proven by verse 2 of the same
chapter: “Joash did what was right in the sight of the LORD all the days of Jehoida the priest.”
What the 1980 Testimony says is wrong, Jehovah says is right.
There is also the example of King Jehoshaphat who commanded some of the Levites,
priests and chief fathers saying, “Thus you shall act in the fear of the LORD, faithfully and with
a loyal heart: Whatever case comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, whether
of bloodshed or offenses against law or commandment, against statutes or ordinances, you shall
warn them, lest they trespass against the LORD and wrath come upon you and your brethren. Do
this, and you will not be guilty. And take notice: Amariah the chief priest is over you in all
matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, for all
the king’s matters; also the Levites will be officials before you. Behave courageously, and the
LORD will be with the good” (2 Chron. 19:9-11). In this passage, the king addresses the high
court of the land. Amariah the high priest was to preside in ecclesiastical cases. The king charged
both ecclesiastical and civil leaders to do their jobs in accordance with Scripture. This was
recorded for us to emulate and imitate, not for us to reject.
One can read about the godly kings of Judah who broke down the idols, removed the high
places and killed the heathen priests in obedience to God’s law (1 Chron. 13:1-9; 2 Kgs. 18:4;
23:1-26; 2 Chron. 15:12, 19:8, 34:33; etc.). Note what occurred under Asa, “Then they entered
into a covenant to seek the LORD God of their fathers with all their heart and with all their soul;
and whoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel was to be put to death, whether small or
great, whether man or woman” (2 Chron. 15:12-13). The civil authorities covenanted to be
faithful to the Mosaic law and thus put to death idolaters, seducers to false religions and
blasphemers so that “blasphemies and heresies would be suppressed,” corruptions in worship
eliminated and “all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.” We also
have the example of Josiah who with the religious and political leaders together with the people
covenanted to serve God and obey His law: “Thus Josiah removed all the abominations from the
country that belonged to the children of Israel, and made all who were present in Israel to
diligently serve the LORD their God. All his days they did not depart from following the LORD
God of their fathers” (2 Chron. 34:33).
We ask those who hold to the 1980 Testimony: Was it wrong for Artaxerxes to issue a
decree that said, “Whatever is commanded by the God of heaven, let it be diligently done to the
48
house of the God of heaven. For why should there be wrath against the realm of the king and his
sons?… And you Ezra [the high priest], according to your God-given wisdom, set magistrates
and judges who may judge all the people who are in the region beyond the River, all such as
know the laws of your God; and teach those who do not know them. Whoever will not observe
the law of your God and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily on him, whether
it be death, or banishment, or confiscation of goods, or imprisonment” (Ez. 7:23, 25, 26)? Here
we have a king instructing a religious leader to institute biblical worship and justice. His
excellent instructions were no doubt based at least in part on truth he had learned from Ezra (cf.
8:22). Even though Artaxerxes violated the 1980 Testimony, Ezra believed he did the right thing
and said, “Blessed be the LORD God of our fathers, who has put such a thing as this into the
king’s heart, to beautify the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem and has extended mercy to
me before the king and his counselors, and before all the king’s mighty princes” (Ez. 7:27-28).
If a Christian civil magistrate is not allowed to implement a biblical law order including
laws relating to the first table of the law (i.e. laws suppressing the open practice and propagation
of idolatry and false religions) or speak to the church when the church is not obeying Scripture or
when there is a spiritual crisis that needs to be addressed, what do the authors of the 1980
Testimony expect a Christian civil magistrate to do? If they are not Advocating pluralism or
freedom of religion for all groups (e.g., Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Romanism, Judaism, the
many cults, etc.), what are they advocating? If the 1980 Testimony is not advocating pluralism,
then how is pluralism suppressed without the suppression of “all blasphemies and heresies”? If I
understand the Testimony’s rejection of the Confession’s teaching correctly, I do not see how the
rejection would allow a Christian civil magistrate to implement a national covenant. It (logically
speaking) would be a rebuke to the godly kings of Judah who implemented national reformations
and covenants.
The rejection of the Confession by the 1980 Testimony would have greatly impeded the
progress of Christendom through history and we can be grateful that churchmen rejected such
thinking until recently. According to the 1980 Testimony, the Emperor Constantine was wrong
for summoning the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 to settle the Arian question even though the
Nicene Creed has greatly benefited the church of Christ for almost 17 centuries. The Testimony
would have also condemned Constantine for banishing the Arians after the decision of the
Council was rendered in accordance with Scripture—a decision that probably saved Christendom
in what would become Europe. The Testimony would also condemn the English Parliament for
calling into existence the Westminster Assembly (1643-1648). The result of this assembly was
the greatest, most advanced and biblical church standards the world has ever seen. They are still
unsurpassed. They are the fullest and most carefully constructed exposition of the Christian faith
ever written. The Testimony would also condemn the States-General of Holland who convened a
great synod on November 13, 1618 to settle the Arminian controversy. The Synod of Dordt
refuted, rejected and condemned the five chief doctrines advanced by the Arminians and the
Synod's findings have been a great blessing to the church of Christ ever since. HAD they not
prevailed against the Arminians, true Christianity would have been in jeopardy in the
49
Netherlands. Thus, we see that the 1980 Testimony’s rejection of the Confession is wrong
historically, biblically and practically.43 Our nation is currently reaping the fruits of pluralism.
Since the Westminster Standards were adopted by the Church of Scotland in its purest
days and were the doctrinal foundation of a covenanted uniformity, it is unbecoming to simply
reject whole or parts of it without some clear and strong exegetical reason as to why. A Synod or
General Assembly has a right to change a doctrinal statement from its past, if it is making the
statement clearer or more biblical. But to simply reject it with no explanation or biblical
substitute is very troubling and in this case appears to be a step backwards.44
The Presentation of Tithes
Under Chapter 21: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day under Section 5 (which
enumerates the elements of worship), the 1980 Testimony adds these words, “The presentation of
tithes and offerings is warranted as part of worship. 1 Cor. 16:1-2; Mal. 3:10; 1 Chron. 29:6-13;
Exod. 23:15” (p.52). This statement, which is likely given to justify the collection of tithes as a
distinct aspect of the worship service, is unscriptural and must be rejected. While it is certainly
true that tithing is an act of piety, it is not an element of public worship. This point can easily be
proven by the 1980 Testimony’s own proof texts offered as evidence for their position.
In 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 we read, “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have
given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: On the first day of the week let each
one of you lay something aside, storing up as he may prosper, that there be no collections when I
43
That the 1980 Testimony has departed from historic Presbyterianism on the civil magistrate is seen in George
Gillespie’s statement on the topic made in 1647: “The orthodox churches believe, and do willingly acknowledge,
that every lawful magistrate, being by God Himself constituted the keeper and defender of both tables of the law,
may and ought first and chiefly to take care of God's glory, and (according to his place [i.e. station in life], or in
his manner and way [i.e. by personal example and precept]), to preserve religion when pure, and to restore it
when decayed and corrupted: and also to provide a learned and godly ministry, schools also and synods, as
likewise to restrain and punish as well atheists, blasphemers, heretics and schismatics, as the violators of justice
and public peace” (One Hundred and Eleven Propositions Concerning the Ministry and Government of the
Church (Edinburgh: Robert Ogle and Oliver and Boyd, [1647] 1844), 14.
In Miscellany Questions, Gillespie notes the absurdity of the pluralistic position: “See now how farre this
principle will reach. A man may deny, and cry down the word of God, Sacraments, Ordinances, all the
Fundamentals of faith, all Religious Worship. One may have leave to plead no Church, and no Minister, no
Ordinances; yea, to blaspheme Jesus Christ, and God himself, and yet to escape the hand of the Magistrate, as
being no troubler of the State” (162-163).
44
In the section Chapter 23: Of the Civil Magistrate under section 4 on page 61 we find the following Statement,
“No civil government which deprives men of civil or religious liberty, fails to protect human life, or proposes to
force men to do violence to the spirit and precepts of the Christian religion or interferes unjustly with private
ownership of property, can in such matters rightfully expect the submission of its citizens or the blessings of God
promised for obedience to him.” We hope that the expression “religious liberty” refers only to Bible believing
Christianity. If it does not and refers to modern post-enlightenment religious pluralism, then it is an explicit
rejection of the civil magistrate’s responsibility to uphold the first table of the law and the establishment
principle.
50
come.” In this new section of the epistle Paul exhorts the Corinthians to set aside funds for the
poor Christians in Jerusalem. The use of the definite article in the expression “the collection”
indicates “the well-known collection.” The fact that the orders were also given to the churches of
Galatia indicates a universal practice and not something only specific for the Corinthians. That
the funds are to be set aside “on the first day of the week” is not surprising in that these were
indeed love offerings and the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath in which all believers
are to worship and celebrate the whole work of Jesus’ redemption. Setting aside money and one’s
increase for the support of the ministry and Christian charity is to be a habitual weekly affair.
There are a few important questions that need to be answered regarding these verses.
What does Paul mean when he says, “lay something aside, storing up”? Does this refer to placing
money in a basket or plate that is passed around during the worship service as an element of
worship? Or, does it simply refer to placing funds aside to be stored and not used until needed (in
this case until Paul comes to collect the charitable gifts)? There are basically two views regarding
the apostle’s meaning. One is that the donations were to be set aside by each individual at home.
Charles Hodge writes, “Every one was to lay up by himself, i.e. most modern commentators say,
at home, par eauto.... The direction then is that everyone should, on the first day of the week lay
aside at home whatever he was able to give, thus treasuring up his contribution.”45 If this view is
correct, the stored up tithes would be ready for Paul on his arrival. In other words, he would not
have to go about trying to get donations. The collection would be done regularly (week by week
so the money was not spent on oneself), universally (each Christian who earned a wage was
expected to give), systematically (the money was placed aside for God) and proportionately (“as
[each] one has prospered”).
The other interpretation is that, as Christians come together to meet on Sunday,
everyone’s weekly gains would be set aside and given to the deacons for storage in the common
treasury of the church. This explains why the collection takes place every Sunday. If we accept
the second view, which makes good sense, do we have a proof text for a tithe collection during
the worship service as an element of worship? The answer is no. We do not have such evidence.
Those who see this verse as teaching the deacons are to collect tithes during the worship service
with baskets or plates are reading a modern church tradition back into the apostolic church.
Instead of making assumptions based on current traditions, we would be wise to interpret the
apostolic practice by looking at Old Testament precedent. The tithes of the land were to be
brought to the temple where they were given to the Levites and placed in storage (Ex. 23:19).
There is nothing about giving contributions during public worship. Animals were tithed as well
and offered to God as atoning sacrifices or burnt offerings. This was an act of worship but was
not part of the public worship service except perhaps on the day of atonement or ceremonial
Sabbaths. In Deuteronomy 14 a tithe is brought to Jerusalem year-by-year for celebrating (v. 22);
at the end of every third year the tithe of produce is brought and stored within their [city] gates to
be used for the local Levites as well as the stranger, fatherless and widows (v. 28). Numbers 18
simply says that the Levites “take from the children of Israel the tithes” (v. 26).
45
Charles Hodge, I & II Corinthians (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, [1857] 1958, 74), 363.
51
The second proof text offered by the testimony also supports the view that the tithe is not
an element of the public worship service. Malachi 3:10 reads, “‘Bring all the tithes into the
storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now in this,’ says the LORD of
hosts, ‘If I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour out for you such blessing that
there will not be room enough to receive it.’” The people were to make a full payment to the
priests and Levites by bringing their tithes to the public storehouse at the temple complex. The
storehouse was one or more large rooms where tithes were stored to be used by the priests and
Levites as needed. In Nehemiah’s time (Neh. 10:37ff), the Levites collected the tithe in all the
cities and towns under the oversight of a priest. These tithes would be brought to the temple
complex and placed in the storage room or rooms.
The third proof text in the Testimony also refutes the Testimony’s position by noting that
the people willingly gave offerings for the temple apart from any public worship service (see 1
Chron. 29:6-13). In 2 Chronicles 31:5-8, the children of Israel brought their tithes to Jerusalem
and laid them in heaps for the support of the priests and Levites. Once again, it was not a part of
the worship service. In 2 Chronicles 34:9, we read of “the money that was brought into the house
of God, which the Levites who kept the doors had gathered from the hand of Manasseh and
Ephraim.” The Levites gathered the money not during a worship service but by going through
the land to the various towns and villages. They placed the tithes in the store room at the temple.
In 2 Chronicles 24:4-14, we read of a chest that was placed by the gate of the house of the LORD
(v. 8) to gather the collection of funds as required in the law of Moses (v. 6). Obviously, they did
not regard collecting the tithe as an aspect of public worship.
In the days of Jesus, the collection of tithes and offerings was still not an element in the
public worship service. In Mark 12:41-44 we read, “Now Jesus sat opposite the treasury and saw
how the people put money into the treasury. And many who were rich put in much. Then one
poor widow came and threw in two mites, which make a quadrans. So He called His disciples to
Himself and said to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all
those who have given to the treasury; for they all put in out of their abundance but she out of her
poverty put in all that she had, her whole livelihood.’”
The word “treasury” is used in the LXX and Josephus (sometimes in the plural) of the
treasure storage rooms that were on the side of the temple building. Here it is used of the
collection chests in the Court of the Women that had slots in the top where people would toss in
their donations (normally gold, silver or bronze coins). There were six chests devoted solely to
“free will offerings.” Thus, once again, we see that while giving to God is an act of piety and
devotion, it is not an element of public worship. For this reason, Jewish synagogues would have
a box near the entrance for donations
The 1980 Testimony’s statement on tithes and offerings as part of public worship (i.e. an
aspect or element of public worship) goes beyond the Westminster Confession and the sacred
Scriptures. This reality has been proved by the proof texts provided by the Testimony itself.
Presbyterian churches should return to the practice of placing a tithe box in the back of the
52
church, near the door, and eliminate the passing of plates and baskets which are then brought up
the front of the church like a Romish ritual.
The Testimony’s Advocacy of Incest
Under the Chapter 24: Of Marriage and Divorce Section 4, the 1980 Testimony says, “We
reject the last sentence in Paragraph 4 of the Confession of Faith” (p. 67). The sentence in the
Confession rejected reads as follows, “The man may not marry any of his wife’s kindred nearer
in blood then he may of his own; nor the woman of her husband’s kindred nearer in blood then of
her own” (see Lev. 18:21-28, 20:19-21 ; 1 Cor. 5:1; Amos 2:7; Mk. 6:18). The Testimony’s
emphatic rejection of the Confession is explained with these words: “The prohibition of marriage
with a deceased wife’s sister or a deceased husband’s brother is not warranted by Scripture. Lev.
18:18; Deut. 25:5-10” (p. 67). The rejection of the last sentence of the Confession of Faith 24:4
is puzzling and disturbing given the fact that:
(1) The biblical laws regarding consanguinity are not only taught by our Confession but
have been accepted by all of Christendom, at least until recent times.
(2) These laws are applied specifically to the Gentile nations in Leviticus 18:24-30.
Because of this they cannot be applied only to Israel or only to the Old Covenant era. Although
laws relating to incest are positive laws (i.e. they are founded only on God’s sovereign authority,
not upon His nature or character), they possess general or universal equity because they were not
typical or ceremonial and were applied to all nations of the earth by God. Moreover, the New
Testament makes it perfectly clear that they have never been abrogated (see 1 Cor. 5:1). They are
what the Puritans would call positive moral laws, not natural moral laws. This point explains
how the children of Adam and Eve could marry and propagate without sin, Abram could be
married to his half-sister (Gen. 20:12; cf. Lev. 18:9) and Jacob could be married to two sisters
simultaneously without condemnation (Gen. 29; cf. Lev. 18:18), for these positive laws had not
yet been given or revealed.
(3) The forbidden degrees are basic to covenant morality and thus Christian morality. The
laws in Leviticus form the basis of permitted degrees of relationships within Christian marriage.
By listing what is prohibited, the enactments leave no doubt in anyone’s mind about what is
unacceptable moral behavior in the sight of God. They presuppose that marriage is a new unique
(one flesh) relationship. “Marriage makes a girl more than a daughter-in-law; she becomes a
daughter to her husband’s parents (Ruth 1:11, 3:1). Biblical law thus literally applies Genesis
2:24, ‘they shall be one flesh.’ Hence, the forbidden degrees include in-laws.”46 That incest goes
beyond the nuclear family is proven by the word “kindred” (moledet) which in Genesis and
Leviticus clearly defines a wider grouping than one’s immediate family. A man may not marry
his mother (v. 7), aunt (vs. 12-13, including a father or mother’s sister), sister or half-sister (v. 9),
step-sister (v. 11), or step-daughter (v. 17), sister-in-law (v. 16), or daughter-in-law (v. 15),
granddaughter (v. 10) or step-grandaughter (v. 17).
46
Rousas John Rushdoony, Leviticus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2005), 192.
53
(4) Incest or sexual relations with near of kin is identified as wickedness (v. 17). The civil
penalties for a number of forms of incest are serious. As Gleason Archer notes,
Attempted marriage or intercourse between persons clearly related to each other constituted a
capital crime; Leviticus 20:11 so specifies in the case of a son who has mated with his father’s
wife, or a father-in-law with his son’s wife. Death by fire is indicated for one who mates with
the mother of his wife (or paramour, Lev. 20:14); all three are to be so executed. Also included
as incest are: brother and sister, nephew and aunt, brother-in-law and sister-in-law (Lev. 20:11,
12, 17, 19-21)—except in the case of levirate marriage (where a surviving brother marries the
childless wife of a deceased brother—Deut. 25:5-10), and apparently also the marriage of two
sisters (Lev. 18:18—a passage which some construe as a prohibition of all polygamy,
understanding “sister” as equivalent to “another woman,” according to common Heb. usage).47
Having noted that the Bible treats incest in all its forms as a serious sin, we turn our
attention to the Testimony’s proof texts to justify their rejection of the Confession. One passage
is Deuteronomy 25:5-10. This passage deals with Levirate marriage or the unusual case of an
Israelite man who dies childless. When this occurs his brother is obligated by Mosaic law either
to marry his dead brother’s wife in order to continue his brother’s name or suffer a public insult
before the elders of the city (v. 9). From that point on the shame of letting his brothers line die
out is attached to that man as a punishment (v. 10). Regarding this peculiar law note the
following:
(1) It only applied to Israel before the coming of Christ in order to preserve distinct
Jewish bloodlines. The firstborn son of a Levirate marriage is reckoned as the son of the
deceased brother and takes the dead father’s name and inheritance. It was important because the
Jews were tied to the land and the land was to remain with certain families. The priests had to
preserve their family lines and most importantly Jesus had to come from a particular family line
within the tribe of Judah. No one believes this law applies after the coming of Christ. Matthew
Poole writes, “The chief care was about the first-born, who were invested with singular
privileges, and were types of Christ…the law…was to keep up the distinction, as of tribes and
families, that so the Messias might be discovered by the family from which he was appointed to
proceed….”48 Matthew Henry notes, “That law which forbids marrying a brother’s wife (v. 16)
had an exception peculiar to the Jewish state, that, if a man died without issue his brother or next
of kin should marry the widow, and raise up the seed to the deceased (Deut. xxv.5), for reasons
which hold good only in that commonwealth; and therefore now that those reasons have ceased
the exception ceases, and the law is enforced, that a man must in no case marry his brother’s
widow.”49 Clearly, since this law was an exception permitted by God Himself, that was abrogated
with the coming of Christ, it does not support the Testimony’s rejection of the Confession.
47
Gleason Archer, “Crime and Punishments” in Merril Tenney Gen. Ed., The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia
of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975, 76), 1:1034.
48
Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1:385.
49
Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, 515.
54
(2) It was an exception by God to a positive law because of unique historical
circumstances and thus does not alter or abrogate Leviticus 18:16 which explicitly forbids
marrying “thy brother’s wife.” Jehovah has the authority to state an exception to one of His
positive moral laws, we do not. Moreover, if one interprets Leviticus 18:18 as permitting a man
to marry his brother’s wife after his brother has died, then there is no contradiction with
Deuteronomy 25:5-10. The problem with the Testimony’s rejection of the Confession is that it
goes beyond what many interpret Leviticus 18:18 to permit. If, with a number of modern
commentators, one believes Leviticus 18:18 allows a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister,
there is still no reason to reject the Confession’s statement for it clearly reflects the teaching of
Scripture (note the Confession’s proof text). If the authors of the Testimony adhere to the
common modern understanding of Leviticus 18:18, they could have shown respect to the
Standards and simply noted Leviticus 18:18 as a rare exception to Leviticus 18:16. But by
rejecting the Confession’s sentence altogether they have opened the door to all sorts of things
that Leviticus 18:18 does not permit (e.g., marrying a brother’s wife after a divorce while the
brother is still alive. John the Baptizer unequivocally condemned Herod for this very thing; Mk.
6:18; Mt. 14:4; Lk. 3:19).
The second proof text is Leviticus 18:18, “Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her
sisters, to uncover her nakedness while the others live.” This is viewed by most modern
commentators as permitting a man to marry a sister of his wife after his wife is dead. A.
Noordtzij writes, “In the prohibition of verse 18 against having concurrent sexual relations with
two sisters, ‘sister’ must naturally be understood in the extended sense that is given to this
relationship in the preceding verses. The marriage of Jacob to both Leah and Rachel indicates
that this was not forbidden in patriarchal times.”50 Keil and Delitzsch concur, “It was forbidden
to take a wife to her sister...in her lifetime that is to say, to marry two sisters at the same
time....and, of course, after the death of the first wife a man was at liberty to marry her sister.”51
G.J. Wenham adds these thoughts, “While she is alive limits the application of this rule to the
woman’s lifetime. Should her husband divorce her he may not marry her sister, but if she has
died he may… The rabbis regarded this sort of arrangement as most praiseworthy, ‘as no other
woman would show the same affection to the orphaned children of the deceased.’”52 The 19th
century Presbyterian scholar S.H. Kellogg agrees:
The prohibition (ver. 18) of marriage with a sister-in-law, as is well known, has been, and still
is, the occasion of much controversy, into which it is not necessary here to enter at length. But,
whatever may be thought for other reasons as to the lawfulness of such a union, it truly seems
quite singular that this verse should ever have been cited as prohibiting such an alliance. No
words could well be more explicit than those which we have here, in limiting the application of
the prohibition to the life-time of the wife: “Thou shalt not take a woman to her sister, to be a
rival to her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time” (R.V.). The law
50
A. Noordtzij, Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 185.
C.F. Keil and Delitzsch, Commnetary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 1:416.
52
G.J. Wenham, The Book of Leviticus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 258.
51
55
therefore does not touch the question for which it is so often cited, but was evidently only
intended as a restriction on prevalent polygamy. Polygamy is ever likely to produce jealousies
and heart-burnings; but it is plain that this phase of the evil would reach its most extreme and
odious expression when the new and rival wife was a sister to the one already married; when it
would practically annull sisterly love, and give rise to such painful and peculiarly humiliating
dissensions as we read of between the sisters Leah and Rachel. The sense of the passage is so
plain, that we are told that this interpretation “stood its ground unchallenged from the third
century B.C. to the middle of the sixteenthth century A.D.” whatever opinion any may hold
therefore as to the expediency, upon other grounds, of this much debated alliance, this passage,
certainly, cannot be fairly cited as forbidding it; but is far more naturally understood as by
natural implication permitting the union, after the decease of the first wife. The laws concerning
incest therefore terminate with ver. 17; and ver. 18, according to this interpretation, must be
regarded as a restriction upon polygamous connections…53
The modern view is totally rejected by earlier commentators and this would explain why
the Confession does not have an explanatory note about permission regarding a deceased wife’s
sister. For example Matthew Poole writes concerning verse 16, “Neither in his lifetime, nor after
his death, and therefore a woman might not marry her husband’s brother, nor might a man marry
his wife’s sister, either before or after his wife’s death, for so all the prohibitions are to be
understood; which will give light to ver. 18. But God, who can undoubtedly dispense with his
own laws, did afterwards make one exception to this rule, of which see Deut. xxv.5.”54
John Gill concurs with these words,
...to vex her, to uncover her nakedness; two reasons are given, why, though polygamy, or having
more wives than one, was connived at, yet it was not allowed that a man should have two
sisters; partly, because they would be more apt to quarrel, and be more jealous and impatient of
one another, if more favor was shewn or thought to be shewn to one more than another; and
partly, because it was a filthy and unbecoming action to uncover the nakedness of one, or lie
with one so nearly related to his wife: besides her in her life-time; from whence some have
concluded, and so many of the Jewish writers, that a man might marry his wife’s sister after her
death but not whilst she was living; but the phrase, in her life-time, is not to be joined to the
phrase thou shalt not take a wife; but to the phrases more near, to vex her in her life-time, or as
long as she lived, and to uncover her nakedness by her, on the side of her, as long as she lived;
for that a wife’s sister may be married to her husband, even after her death, cannot be lawful, as
appears from the general prohibition, ver. 6. none of you shall approach to him that is near of
kin to him; and yet it is certain that a wife’s sister is near akin to a man; and from the prohibition
of marriage with an uncle’s wife, with the daughter of a son-in-law, or of a daughter-in-law, ver.
14, 17. Now a wife’s sister is nearer of kin than either of these; and from the confusion that
must follow in case of issue by both, not only of degrees but appellation of kindred; one and the
same man, who as a father of children, and the husband of their mother’s sister, stands in the
relation both of a father and an uncle to his own children; the woman to the children of the
53
54
S.H. Kellogg, The Book of Leviticus (Minneapolis: Klock & Klock, [1899] 1978), 382-383.
Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, 1:236.
56
deceased sister stands in the relation both of a stepmother, and of a mother’s sister or aunt, and
to the children that were born of her, she stands in the relation both of a mother and an uncle’s
wife; and the two sorts of children are both brethren and own cousins by the mother’s side, but
of this see more on ver. 16.55
One can see that Leviticus 18:18 is a difficult passage that has resulted in two very
different interpretations. Does one interpret Leviticus 18:18 in light of the previous prohibitions
and seek to harmonize it with what proceeds; or does one view it as a rare sole exception? Earlier
expositors rejected the position of the Testimony while more modern interpreters agree with the
statement under their rejection. All scholars are in agreement that Deuteronomy 25:5-10 does not
really address this issue. Even if one sides with modern expositors, the rejection is totally
unwarranted. The Confession’s statement is an accurate and faithful summary of Chapter 18.
The prohibitions in Chapter 18 are straightforward and unequivocal. If one sides with the modern
view of Leviticus 18:18, then the Confession could only be faulted for not mentioning a very rare
exception. The authors of the Testimony should have noted the one of rare exception without
rejecting the Confession’s reiteration of Leviticus 18.
The Testimony is guilty of rejecting a biblical statement that is proved by the Word of
God. The Testimony’s rejection is akin to a legislature passing a law legalizing abortion on
demand (for any cause) on the basis that on an exceptionally rare occasion a baby might
accidentally perish while doctors are operating on a mother to save her life. The 1980
Testimony’s rejection is inexplicable except perhaps as a change due to historical circumstances
to justify incest in small farming communities where available brides were in short supply. When
it comes to biblical ethics, Christians would be wise to not forsake their earlier testimony without
clear proof.
55
John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament, 1:640. Gill’s comments on verse 16 are, “[Thou shalt not uncover
the nakedness of thy brother’s wife, &c.] Neither debauch her, nor after the death of the brother marry her, that is,
unless he dies without issue; and then, by another law, he was obliged to marry her, Deut. xxv. 5. hence the
Targum of Jonathan adds, by way of explanation, ‘in the life of thy brother, or after his death, if he has children,’
but then that law was but an exception from this general rule, and so did not make it void in other respects, but
bound it the more strongly; and besides, it was a special and peculiar law to the Jews, until the Messiah came, to
make it manifest of what tribe and family he came; and the reason of its ceasing, the law itself is ceased, and so
neither binding on Jews nor Gentiles: hence John the Baptist boldly told Herod to his face, that it was not lawful
for him to have his brother’s wife, Mt. xiv. 3, 4...Plutarch also reports, that Marcus Crassus married the wife of
his deceased brother; but such marriages are condemned by the same writer, as they are by the ancient Christians
in their councils and canons; now by this same law, if it is not lawful for a man to have his brother’s wife, then it
is not lawful for her to have her sister’s husband; or, in other words, if it is not lawful for a woman to marry two
brothers, then it is not lawful for a man to marry two sisters: the case of Jacob will not countenance such a
marriage, since he was imposed upon and deceived; and such marriages have also been disapproved by the
Heathens and Christians” (Ibid. 1:639). Noordtzij writes, “English marriage law long understood verse 18 to
mean that marrying the sister of a deceased wife was forbidden. It was not until ‘the deceased wife’s sister’s
marriage act’ of 1907 that this prohibition was done away with” (Leviticus, 185, footnote 2).
57
The Testimony on Political Involvement
Under Confession 23:4 the 1980 Testimony reads, “When participating in political
elections, the Christian should support and vote only for such men as are publicly committed to
scriptural principles of civil government. Should the Christian seek civil office by political
election, he must openly inform those who support he seeks of his adherence to Christian
principles of civil government. 1 Chron. 15:31; 2 Cor. 6:14-18; 2 Chron. 19:6-7; Daniel 2:48;
Eph. 4:25” (p. 63-64). If the Testimony is speaking of voting for civil officials in the United
States, which seems likely, then we have here a departure of the denomination’s previous (longheld) position on political dissent.56 The R.P.C.N.A. in its earlier history held the position that it
was wrong to vote for anyone who was willing to take an oath to the Constitution of the United
States. The reason behind this is biblical and logical. If one votes for a person willing to swear to
uphold the U.S. Constitution as it currently stands, then one is approving of the Constitution
indirectly. To approve of a document that does not mention Jehovah or Jesus Christ and that
exalts “we the people” above the glorified Mediator and the Word of God, is immoral and antiChristian. In addition, the fact that the Constitution does not require and even explicitly forbids a
religious oath for office (i.e. one does not have to profess Christ, or believe in the Trinity, or
accept the inspiration, infallibility and authority of Scripture, or accept the moral law of God as
eternally binding over all men; etc.) is proof that Christ and the Bible are not the standard or
foundation of civil rule in the United States. The Federal Constitution (i.e. the U.S. national
covenant) was adopted without submission to the enthroned Mediator and the Bible (His lawWord). It is a humanistic idolatrous document; the fruit of which is easily seen in our day where
atheism, humanistic positivistic law and statism prevails. If a politician is willing to swear to this
document and believes it is the right thing to do for America, then even though he may privately
profess Christ, his position on the national covenant is diametrically opposed to the kingship of
56
Prior to the U.S. Constitution, faithful Covenanters maintained dissent based on the rejection of the Solemn
League and Covenant. After the adoption of the Constitution, political dissent was based on the secular nature of
the new Constitution. Rev. James McKinney, whose uncompromising intellect and personal leadership was used
by God to reestablish the Covenanter Church in America in the 1790s, strongly criticized the U.S. Constitution
and Pennsylvania's state constitution for two reasons: First, their rank secularism (that is the idea that civil
government “is utterly resolvable into the corrupt will of unprincipled and ungodly men, without a regard to the
moral law;”). Second, the pluralism or tolerationism of the Constitution where the civil government openly
allows religious error and heresy. They “engaged to protect every enemy of God and of his Christ, provided they
will take shelter under the wings of the United States’ (From ‘An Act…for a Day of Public Fasting…” Reprinted
in Reformed Presbyterian and Covenanter, II [January, 1864], 10-15). McKinney’s position was amplified and
defended brilliantly in Samuel B. Wylie’s small book Two Sons of Oil published in 1803. Rev. Wylie’s position is
explained under five heads: “The federal Constitution does not recognize the existence of God; the constitutions,
both state and federal, establish a toleration of religion which recognizes heresy on an equal footing with truth;
there is no provision for the interest of true religion; there is no religious test for officeholders; and finally the
recognition of the principle of [chattel] slavery” (David Melville Carson, A History of the Reformed Presbyterian
Church in America [Doctoral Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1964], 60-61). This crucial distinctive has been
cast aside as the R.P.C.N.A. has become more and more like their non-covenanted backslidden Presbyterian
counterparts.
58
Christ and the application of the Great Commission. To vote for such a person would be to vote
for someone in rebellion against God who repudiates the present-relevant Kingship of Christ
over the nations. Instead of kissing the Son and paying Him obeisance and homage as King over
kings and Lord over lords, autonomous man is placed on the throne as ultimate ruler, judge and
lawgiver. Christians who accept the Constitution and cooperate with it are helping place the
United States in a position where Christ will have to smash it like a potter’s vessel (cf. Ps. 2).
Believers must not vote for someone who we know will swear to something that we ourselves
cannot swear to because it is immoral and anti-Christian.
The only answer to this kind of argument is either to argue that the U.S. Constitution is
Christian or to build a case solely on pragmatism. Regarding the first argument, people need to
know that the signers of the Constitution openly admitted that if the American people wanted
atheists, Romanists or Mohammedans to rule over them, the First Amendment of the
Constitution certainly allows it. In other words, they understood it as teaching that the people are
the ultimate authority, not the glorified Redeemer and the Bible.
What about the various pragmatic arguments? For example, if we do not vote for a
conservative Republican (or a libertarian) who is much less evil than a liberal Democrat (who is
pro-abortion, pro-sodomite marriage, pro-socialism, etc.) are we not handing society over to the
most wicked anti-Christians possible? The problem with this popular argument is twofold. First,
it assumes that the thrice holy God of Scripture does not have a problem with His people
choosing the lesser of two evils. While a conservative Republican (generally speaking) is far
better ethically than a liberal Democrat, he is still wicked in his autonomous humanistic thought
compared to the standard of God’s Word. We must not forget that the Republican Party welcomes
unrepentant homosexuals, cult members, atheists, Romanists, feminists and abortionists. The
platform of the party is somewhat influenced by evangelical Christianity, but it is not Christian.
Second, the pragmatic argument fails to take into account that: (1) God blesses His
people for an uncompromising obedience. It is simply a lack of faith in God’s Word and power
which says we must be pragmatic and choose the lesser of two evils to stem the tide of
wickedness in this land. But someone may argue, “Did not Daniel and Joseph compromise with
the heathen governments for the good of the people?” No. They most certainly did not. They did
not swear an oath to false gods. Moreover, Daniel was willing to be put to death before he would
obey a sinful law. They served on their own terms because Jehovah placed them in that position
by a miraculous intervention and were uncompromising biblicists. (2) God’s people can be a salt
and light to society and do much good for the cause of God and truth without compromising with
paganism, godlessness or deism. If Christians (through a work of God’s Spirit) can take over the
Roman Empire, they can take over America. As long as Christians accept wickedness as the
norm and prefer religious pluralism over the biblical advocacy of a Christocracy, they will not
seek to fulfill the full meaning of the Great Commission which involves discipling whole
nations. Their lack of faith and refusal to believe in God’s promises and teaching on the civil
government leaves them in the wilderness of political polytheism. We can only pledge allegiance
to a constitution, national covenant or civil government that pledges allegiance to Jesus the
59
Messiah who is the Son of God, who sits at the Father’s right hand and has all authority in
heaven and earth.
Of Marriage and Divorce
Under Confession of Faith 24:5 the 1980 Testimony reads, “Before seeking divorce, it is
the responsibility of the innocent party to attempt reconciliation with the guilty party in the same
manner as in any case of sin, first by his or her own appeal, and then, if need be, by calling on
the elders of the church. Mt. 18:15-17.” Under 24:6 the Testimony has a similar statement, “If
any marriage threatened with dissolution, or even if divorce has occurred, both parties ought to
strive for reconciliation on the basis of repentance for sin and willingness to forgive. Eph. 5:25ff;
4:31-32; 1 Cor. 7:10-14” (p. 68). If by this statement the Testimony is teaching that the innocent
party cannot (under any circumstances) get a divorce if the guilty party repents and wants to stay
married, then based on Scripture we disagree. Although this view is very common in evangelical
and Reformed circles it has no exegetical proof. This will be demonstrated by the following
observations.57
First, the sin of adultery is not just a sin but also a serious crime. While the victim (i.e. the
innocent party) of this sin (which is a crime) has a certain amount of latitude regarding the
penalty (in other words, the death penalty is not required in all cases like murder, bestiality or
homosexual acts, for the victim can substitute a lesser penalty; read Mt. 1:19, Prov. 6:35; Deut.
24:1ff), there is no requirement in Scripture for the innocent party to stay married if the guilty
party confesses and repents.58 In the law, Deuteronomy 24:1 teaches that a covenant man may
57
The Testimony here is somewhat ambiguous. In this section I am responding to what was popular in a Presbytery
that was influenced by Bill Gothard and evangelicalism in general.
58
The crime of adultery according to God’s law was punished by death: “If a man is found lying with a woman
married to a husband, then both of them shall die—the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you
shall put away the evil from Israel. If a young woman who is a virgin is betrothed to a husband, and a man finds
her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gates of that city, and you shall stone
them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he
humbled his neighbor’s wife; so you shall put away the evil from among you” (Deut. 22:22-24). Note, that the
adultery statute applies both to married and betrothed parties. The betrothed woman is treated as if she were
married. In Leviticus 20:11 the death penalty for adultery is stated with the emphatic pleonasm “dying, they shall
die” usually translated: [they] “shall surely be put to death.”
Many scholars believe that death for adultery was the maximum penalty but that the victim could accept a
lesser penalty. This is inferred from: (1) Prov. 6:34-35 which speaks of a recompense for adultery; (2) The case
of Joseph’s attempt to put away Mary during their betrothal (one should keep in mind the Romans did not allow
the death penalty for adultery); (3) Sometimes John 8:3-7 and the woman caught in adultery is used, but one
should keep in mind that (a) Jesus, in His state of humiliation, was not an earthly judge, (b) the man had to be
executed as well and he was absent and (c) it was a crime under Roman law to kill adulterers (as noted); (4)
Deuteronomy 24:1ff which allows for a bill of divorcement for sexual uncleanness. This would not make sense if
death was required in all cases. However, it is possible that Deuteronomy 24:1ff speaks to the issue of the case of
sexual immorality that cannot be proven with two witnesses in a civil court.
60
divorce his wife if he finds some uncleanness in her. The phrase erwat dabar literally means
“nakedness of a thing” or “a naked matter.” It means sexual immorality or adultery. This is our
Savior’s interpretation in His exception clause found in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. (Remember,
Jesus is not refuting the law of Moses but giving the true meaning of it against scribal
perversions.) Both God’s law and Christ explicitly teach that a Christian is free to divorce his
unfaithful wife. There is no requirement for the innocent to stay married if the unfaithful partner
breaks off the adultery, confesses his or her sin and asks for forgiveness. The innocent party can
forgive the repentant offender and still get divorced in order to marry another.59 How can this be
so? Because adultery is not only a sin but a serious crime that breaks the marriage covenant. A
sin that is a crime has consequences. If a man commits a murder and then becomes a Christian
and acknowledges, confesses his sin and then asks the victim’s family for forgiveness, they are
required to forgive him. But, he is still put to death for his crime. In fact, Scripture emphatically
demands the death penalty whether he repents or not. A man that cannot get over his jealousy, or
a woman whose husband slept with 100 prostitutes and contracted the AIDS virus, or a man who
raped children or committed incest, or a man whose wife had an adulterous affair for 10 years
According to biblical law, it is the victimized husband that must press charges. He “can lawfully file the
covenant lawsuit in up to three covenantal courts: family, church, and State. A covenant lawsuit is first presented
by the victimized husband to the suspected partner, and then (at the discretion of the victimized husband) it is
presented in the appropriate court or courts. The institutional church has a legitimate role to play if either of the
marriage partners is a member. It pronounces the sentence of covenantal death against the offending party. Thus,
adultery can sometimes affect all three covenantal institutions. The victim declares that the covenantal bond of
marriage has been broken, and that the adulterers have now come under God’s wrath. If the suspected adulterous
male partner is married, his wife can also file appropriate lawsuits against her husband. Biblical law makes it
clear, however, that the husband of the adulterous wife was primary authority to specify the penalty. It is his
covenantal household office as the head of the family that has been attacked by the adulterers. If he decides on
the death penalty for his wife, as we shall see, her criminal consort cannot escape her fate. As the officer of his
family’s government, the victimized husband specifies the penalties; the wife of the adulterer cannot stay the
hand of the civil magistrate” (Gary North, Victim’s Rights: The Biblical View of Victim’s Rights [Tyler, TX:
Institute for Christian Economics, 1990], 42-43).
59
In Deuteronomy 24:4, the option of taking back a divorce wife is left open as long as the woman has not married
another man after the divorce. Note, however, that the innocent party is not required to take the adulterer back if
she repents. P.C. Craigie writes, “If the man decided to divorce the woman, he was to write out a bill of divorce
and formally serve it on the woman. She was then sent away from the man’s house, but possession of the bill of
divorce gave her a certain protection under law from any further action by the man. In the situation envisaged by
this particular piece of legislation, the divorced woman then remarries another man. The second marriage is
terminated, either by a second divorce or by the death of the second husband. Now comes the specific
legislation: under all these circumstances, the first man may not remarry his former wife. After she has been
defiled—the language (defiled) suggests adultery (see Lev. 18:20). The sense is that the woman’s remarriage
after the first divorce is similar to adultery in that the woman cohabits with another man. However, if the woman
were then to remarry her first husband, after divorcing the second, the analogy with adultery would become even
more complete; the woman lives first with one man, then another, and finally returns to the first. Thus the intent
of the legislation seems to be to apply certain restrictions on the already existing practice of divorce. If divorce
became too easy, then it could be abused and it would become a ‘legal’ form of committing adultery” (The Book
of Deuteronomy [Grand Rapids: Erdmans, 1976], 305).
61
with his best friend is not required to stay married if their spouse repents.60 They can forgive, yet
move on because the covenant was broken; or they can forgive and stay married. The decision is
theirs. If they forgive and stay married, they must stay married unless another offense occurs. (In
other words, once a victim forgives and also decides to stay married, he cannot change his mind
down the road.)
Second, the use of Matthew 18:15ff as a proof text that a man must remain married if his
unfaithful wife repents is illegitimate for the following reasons: (1) It contradicts the explicit
teaching of God’s law (as noted); (2) It explicitly contradicts Matthew 1:19 where Joseph, upon
discovering that Mary was pregnant (without his participation), decided to privately divorce her.
Keep in mind, that this verse says that Joseph was a just or righteous man. He was not violating
any principle of the Mosaic law when he sought to divorce his wife privately. If he was required
to forgive his wife and stay with her, but refused to do so, he would not have been just or
righteous. Not knowing how Mary became pregnant, he believed she was guilty of sexual
immorality and thus chose to put her away quietly in order to avoid bringing civil charges against
her, which would have brought great shame to her and her family. He was unwilling to tolerate
what he believed was fornication, yet he loved Mary and wanted to treat her with mercy. If the
Bible agreed with the Testimony’s position, Joseph had no business whatsoever seeking a
divorce for he should have only been seeking a reconciliation. If the authors of the Testimony
want to fall back on a Bill Gothard argument and say that what Joseph did was permissible
because it was only the betrothal period then two insurmountable problems emerge: (a) The Jews
regarded a betrothal contract as binding as marriage; and (b) If Joseph could extend mercy and
forgive Mary and still put her away, then why could he not do the same thing with a wife? In
other words, if the reconciliation demanded by Matthew 18:15ff required a man to stay with his
adulterous repentant wife, why would it not also require Joseph to stay with Mary if she
repented?
Third, Matthew 18:15-17 deals with sin and church courts, not civil matters. A man who
committed adultery, confessed his sin and sincerely repented could avoid excommunication, but
avoiding excommunication does not necessarily mean avoiding civil sanctions. If one attempts to
apply the Testimony’s position to the Old Testament, the death penalty for divorce would not
exist or at least would never have been applied. If someone could simply say “I am sorry. I
repent” and avoid all civil sanctions, whether death or a steep fine of restitution, then would not
all civil sanctions disappear? If a professing Christian breaks the marriage covenant, the innocent
party must follow Matthew 18:15ff and must seek the adulterer’s repentance so that he or she
will not be cast outside of the covenant community. But because a serious crime has been
committed that breaks the marriage covenant, the law allows the innocent victim to divorce the
guilty party.
60
In cases of habitual adultery, the death penalty should be enforced, for such egregious cases of treason against the
family pose a threat to the covenant community and society at large. People who argue that the innocent party
must forgive in all cases fail to take into account that adultery is a serious crime that affects covenantal
institutions outside of the church.
62
The bill of divorcement is not a negative sanction or a document that by itself lawfully
breaks the marriage bond (if it did, then those who got divorced unlawfully would not be guilty
of adultery when they remarried), it is rather the public legal announcement of a broken
marriage—a marriage broken by adultery. Adultery breaks the covenant of marriage but does not
automatically dissolve the marriage relationship. It only gives the right to the innocent party, if
they so desire, to demand that it be dissolved by competent lawful authority. And if they so
demand the dissolution, they are not left completely to their own discretion in the case but must
seek counsel from their elders and follow the laws of the land unless they contradict Scripture.
If we allow Matthew 18:15ff to be used to negate the explicit teaching of God’s Word on
divorce, then could it not also be used to negate all civil sanctions in the Old Testament law if
someone says they repent? The covenantal sphere of the state would effectively be swallowed by
the ecclesiastical sphere. If a husband or wife’s adulterous partner repents and is fully restored to
church fellowship and communion, he or she can stay married. But, (once again) the law and
Jesus Christ say he or she does not have to stay married if they do not want to. On this the
Confession is clear: “In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to
sue out a divorce (Mt. 5:31, 32), and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party
were dead (Mt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2, 3)” (24:5). R.C. Sproul’s comments on this topic are excellent:
The confession teaches that divorce has to be according to the law of God not according to the
will of the participants.
Even if there are just grounds for divorce, be it adultery or desertion, it doesn’t mean that a
person must dissolve the marriage. It simply means that he or she may seek a divorce. When
God gives the right to a Christian to dissolve a marriage, the person who exercises that right
ought not to be criticized by the rest of the community.
If a man commits adultery and then pleads for forgiveness from his wife, it is her Christian
duty to forgive him. She has no other option. But that doesn’t mean that she must stay married
to him. She must forgive him and receive him as a brother in Christ, but she does not have to
receive him as a husband in Christ. His behavior radically undermined the trust that is
foundational to an intimate marital relationship. If she cannot continue in such a damaged
relationship, God gives her the freedom to dissolve it. I have seen the Christian community
criticize the innocent party in such circumstances for going ahead with divorce. But the person
has that right, and it is wrong to condemn that Christian for exercising his or her right.61
Fourth, the common evangelical position is easily driven to absurdity. The Testimony
says, “Even if divorce has occurred, both parties ought to strive for reconciliation on the basis of
repentance for sin and willingness to forgive” (p. 68). Reconciliation to the point of remarriage
may be wise in some cases but foolish in others. For example, if a man committed adultery
repeatedly, it would be very unwise to remarry him for he is not trustworthy. One can forgive
such a person if he repents but one does not have to place one’s life on hold for someone with a
61
R.C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Layman’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Phillipsburg, NJ:
Presbyterian and Reformed, 2007), 3:40-41.
63
habitual pattern of unfaithfulness. Christians are required to be merciful and wise. One does not
have to remarry a repentant pedophile or a sodomite. Such thinking essentially punishes the
innocent party and forces them into an unreasonable position.
Desertion
Under Confession 24:6 the Testimony says, “Desertion can be a ground of divorce when
the departing person is an unbeliever. 1 Cor. 7:15; Mt. 8:17” (p. 68). That statement is true but
the Testimony should also note that professing Christians who desert their spouse should (after
the proper biblical steps have been taken; cf. Mt. 18:15ff) be excommunicated if they do not
repent. Once they have been excommunicated by the church, the remaining Christian spouse is
free to divorce them because they no longer have a credible profession and are to be treated the
same as a heathen (Mt. 18:17).
The Guilty Party
Under the same section the Testimony says, “If the unrepentant guilty party in a divorce
marries another he commits adultery. Mt. 19:9” (p. 68). This statement is liable to be interpreted
in such a manner that if the guilty party acknowledges his sin, publicly confesses, repents and is
restored to church fellowship and communion, he may eventually remarry another. This position,
which is common among evangelical and Reformed churches today, is unscriptural. As long as
the innocent party is alive the guilty party cannot remarry without committing adultery. The
Confession does not allow for the remarriage of the guilty party, period. If one adopts the
common view of churches today, then easy divorce for the sake of remarriage is permitted as
long as one says they repent. But true repentance requires reconciliation if the innocent party will
take the guilty back. If not, they must remain single.
The Testimony on Public Education
Under the Confession of Faith 24 (Of Marriage and Divorce) Section 6, the Testimony
has a lengthy statement on the education of children. Much of what is said is biblical but some
statements are radically unbiblical. Note how the following statement endorses state schools and
assumes they are supported by Scripture:
In order to promote the general welfare, the state may prescribe educational standards and
should provide educational opportunities, both in harmony with God’s law. Deut. 6:6-9; Psalm
34:11; 78:2-7; Prov. 22:6.
In the providence of God public schools have provided great social benefits. Yet in serving a
highly pluralistic society they have attempted to be religiously and morally “neutral,” which is
sinful. To a large extent instruction is based on a secular, humanistic philosophy which ignores
God and sees man’s welfare as the highest good. Local schools vary widely, however, according
64
to the standards of the community and the quality of the teachers. All Christians, especially
those who are teachers, school administrators or board members, should bear witness to the
whole truth of God as it relates to education. Mt. 12:30; 2 Sam. 23:3-4 (p. 69).
There are a number of problems with this statement. First, we want to know on what
basis does the civil magistrate have the authority to set educational standards and provide
educational opportunities? Perhaps the Testimony’s proof texts will provide us with an answer to
this question. In Deuteronomy 6:6-9, we learn that God places the responsibility of the education
of children squarely in the hands of parents. This point is rather obvious when we consider the
biblical teaching on covenant headship and family government. According to the Bible, parents
are to govern in the home (Eph. 6:4) and this governance involves teaching, example, experience
and discipline. The state is to get involved only when civil laws are broken by parents or children
(i.e. when sins which are defined as crimes are committed). To hand education over to the state
or to place the state above the family and church in this matter is to deify the state and is
implicitly Erastian. To place the state in charge of education either through regulations or
through state schools implicitly teaches children to look to the state for truth, meaning and ethics.
The state is viewed as a father and mother of its citizens. “Such a perspective works to destroy
the people, whose basic lesson becomes a dependence on the state. The state rather than the
individual and the family, is looked to for moral decision and action, and the moral role of the
individual is to assent to and bow down before the state. Statist education is at the very least
implicitly anti-Biblical, even when and where it gives the Bible a place in the curriculum.”62
Morris writes, “It is significant that there is no reference in the Scriptures to the school as a
separate institution established by God. In spite of the great importance of the teaching ministry,
God has not seen fit to ordain schools as such. Even the implications of the cultural mandate
[Genesis 1:26-28] and the Noahic covenant [Genesis 9:1-7], with the establishment of the
institution of human government, do not suggest the parallel establishment of schools as
instruments of such human governments. As far as the Bible is concerned, the function of
transmitting truth and educating the young belongs to the home and church.”63
Another proof text in this section of the Testimony is Psalm 34:11, “Come, you children,
listen to me; I will teach you the fear of the LORD.” Perhaps the reason this verse has been
selected is because David is the king and thus this verse is supposed to support the idea that
children should go to the state to learn the fear of the LORD. There are a number of problems
with this view. (1) David did not set up any public or state schools and he did not teach in any
such schools either. The Testimony’s apparent application of this verse violates the analogy of
Scripture and is simply ridiculous from an exegetical perspective. (2) David is speaking as an
inspired prophet and is teaching the church what to do through divine revelation. His words are
fully authoritative and binding because they were inspired by God. To ignore this fact and
attempt to find a justification for state education in this verse is disingenuous.
62
63
Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Craig Press, 1973), 184.
Henry Morris, Education for the Real World (San Diego: Creation Life Pub., 1977), 36-37.
65
Psalm 72:2-7 is also referenced, which refers to the need to instruct the coming
generation against infidelity by teaching them the clear lessons of history. Asaph, writing by the
Holy Spirit, refers to the transmission of this crucial information from fathers to their children in
verses 3, 4, 5 and 6. Verses 7 and 8 tell us why the transmission of this knowledge is so
important. In other words, this Psalm concurs with the teaching of Deuteronomy 6:6-9. There is
nothing in these verses which speak of the state prescribing educational standards or getting
involved in the education of children. The same could be said regarding Proverbs 22:6 where
parents are told to train up a child in the [proper] way he should go because when he grows up he
will not depart from that instruction. The Testimony has not offered one bit of scriptural evidence
for their position on state education. In fact, the texts cited prove the exact opposite of the
Testimony’s position.
The position of the Testimony is actually dangerous, for it waters down proper
governmental spheres or covenantal institutions and their God-given responsibilities and thus
denies to an extent the authority that belongs to each covenantal institution. If the state can
interfere and set standards, or fine those who do not meet those standards, it will eventually
intrude upon both family and church. “If we as individuals neglect our personal governing duties,
then we can expect the state to assume the role of all other legitimate governments and claim to
be the sole government, while labeling all others as counterfeits. Therefore, to see the state as the
only governing institution ‘is destructive of liberty and of life.’”64Modern secular governments
see public schools as a means to mold the masses into their image. It is an issue of control and
propaganda, couched in terms of love and compassion. The state wants to assume the role of the
father to the children because (in its mind) parents cannot be trusted to indoctrinate their children
correctly for the benefit of humanity. Modern civil governments increasingly view children as
the property of the state. “This view is basic to the philosophies of statist education. It is
especially pronounced in all forms of Marxism, national and international socialism alike. The
child is a state resource, to be developed and used for the welfare of the state.”65 When Christians
put their children in a state school, they are implicitly supporting the state’s messianic claim of
total jurisdiction over the family. The authors of the Testimony are attempting to justify what was
popular in the R.P.C.N.A. in 1980 and they did so without even one valid, relevant proof text
from Scripture. Their unbiblical teaching unwittingly contributes to the Molech state’s power
religion. If they argue that they are only discussing “good” public schools, then please tell us
where a “good” public school that acknowledged the Lordship of Christ and the Word of God
existed in 1980? The biblical position is that all professing Christians should pull their children
out of the state schools immediately. They should either homeschool their children or work with
the pastor and elders of their church to establish an explicitly Christian school that bows the knee
to Christ.
Although the primary responsibility of educating children belongs to parents, the church
also has an important role to play. There were teachers in Israel besides the parents but these
64
65
R.J. Rushdoony, Politics of Guilt and Pity, 332.
Gary DeMar, God and Government: A Biblical Study (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1982), 1:4.
66
teachers were not employees of the state, licensed by the civil government or regulated by the
state. They were the priests and Levites who read the sacred Scriptures (Deut. 31:9-13) and
taught the law of God to the people (Lev. 10:11; Deut. 24:8, 29:9, 33:10). The teachers in Israel
were not supported by taxes but by tithes and offerings (see Num. 18:21; Lev. 27:30, 32; Deut.
12:5, 6, 11; Ex. 30:11-16).66 This teaching ministry was not ceremonial and continues in the New
Covenant era under the ministry of pastor-teachers (Eph. 4:11).
Recognizing that education was a soul function that was rooted in religion and that the
church has a crucial role in the education of the covenant people, the first Presbyterians believed
that there should be an explicitly Christian form of education in the land. In the First Book of
Discipline (Head V), they called for the establishment of a national parochial system run by
ministers which received support from the state. These were to be church-run schools, not staterun schools. Although we do not agree that the state has authority to collect taxes for public
education (except for military schools and police academies), states can and should give grants
from the spoils of war or other lawful sources (see Isa. 49:23 and Ps. 72:8). The Bible teaches
that Christian schools should be supported by tithes and offerings for the poor who cannot afford
tuition. As soon as funding comes from coercive taxation, the state will be tempted to interfere
with the local Christian school, a practice which is implicitly Erastian and statist.67
In addition, it is important that we keep in mind that the education of children has been
given to parents or the covenantal sphere of the family by God and thus church schools should be
under the authority of fathers working in conjunction with the pastor and elders. The school’s
authority is derivative and exists solely to assist the parents who are too busy, poor, or lacking in
the skills necessary for a full-orbed Christian education. Christian schools must be seen primarily
as extensions of the Christian home. They do not fully replace home instruction but supplement
it and complement it. “When Christian parents send their children to a Christian school, they are
delegating full authority to that school for the education of that child during the school hours.
The Christian teacher stands ‘in loco parentis’ (‘in the place of a parent’) with respect to the
child. The school assumes the godly role of the parent during those school hours. The school is
engaged in a discipling process in its fullest sense. It is engaged in character building.”68
Since Christian schools have as their purpose instilling the fear of God and the Christian
world and life view, their curriculum and discipline are at bottom theological and ethical.
Consequently, all Christian schools should be accountable not only to parents but also to the
session of the local church, which is in turn accountable to a Presbytery. The session has an
obligation to make sure that the curriculum fully accords with the Westminster Standards and
that the teachers are members of the church in good standing as well as qualified theologically,
66
Those who argue for state financed education do so by turning the Levites into civil officials. For a refutation of
this view, see my article Education, Dominion and the Role of the State. The state can give grants to Christian
schools but they do not have the biblical authority to tax Peter to pay for Paul’s children.
67
For an exegetical refutation of the idea that public schools should be supported by coercive taxation by the state
see Brian M. Schwertley, Education, Dominion and the Role of the State.
68
John M. Otis, “The Necessity for the Christian School” in Journal of Christian Reconstruction: Symposium on the
Core Group (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon, 1987), Vol. II, no. 2, 29.
67
intellectually and ethically. The modern practice of independent or parachurch Christian schools
run by a board of businessmen and non-elders is unscriptural and counterproductive.
The view of the original Covenanters was held by Reformed Presbyterians at least
through the 1850s. The R.P. Church taught that in addition to all the parental responsibilities to
teach their children, the church had a responsibility to help even with “secular” subjects. This
was the official position of the church at that time, even though their desire to set up Reformed
Presbyterian schools never panned out. “The Book of Discipline, adopted in 1841, but first
formulated in 1819, said, ‘The schools in which children are educated, whensoever it is
practicable, should be under the direction of the church.’”69 This directive did not receive the
attention it deserved and the R.P. Church never carried it out. “In many congregations ministers
established schools, but there is no record that there were official parish schools.”70 The Synod
and local Presbyteries dropped the ball in this area and, at least as a partial result, the R.P. Church
did not have a good record on passing their religious heritage on to their covenant children.
There was a desire among many Presbyterians outside of Covenanter circles to establish
church run parish schools during the 1840s and 1850s due to the secularization of public schools
in the preceding decades. “In 1846, this program was adopted by the General Assembly [of the
PCUSA], and by 1850, one hundred such schools were in operation.”71 This stimulated some
interest among Covenanters. In 1845, Synod recommended the establishment of parish schools,
under the jurisdiction of sessions, in which “‘collaterally with the secular branches of education,’
the Bible should be read, the Psalms in meter and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms committed
to memory, and the more ‘elemental doctrines [i.e. the fundamental core teachings] made
subjects of Scripture proof.’ Where a school was impractical, synod proposed a sort of releasedtime system, in which pastors and members of session should provide a day or part of a day of
religious instruction.”72 This excellent plan never came to fruition, but it reveals that at the time
they understood the church’s responsibility on this issue.
The reason it did not come to pass is largely explained by the fact that Covenanters
during this time living in very rural situations (especially in the Midwest) and consequently were
widely spread out. This can be seen in a report by the Illinois Presbytery to synod in 1847 noting
some of the obstacles to a parish system: “The scattered situation of our people, and the
consequent difficulty of collecting a sufficient number of children to one place to support a
school.”73 One must keep in mind that in those days people rode horses (or a horse and buggy).
Moreover, the roads were not paved and were generally horrendous, especially in winter and
spring. Farm life, too, was difficult. But the main reason the R.P. Church was never successful in
69
Book of Government... (Albany: J. Munsell, 1842), 67. As quoted in David Melville Carson, A History of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church in America, 168. Quotes for the R.P. Synod or Covenant Magazine in this section
are from Carson’s PhD thesis.
70
Ibid.
71
Lewis J. Sherrill, Presbyterian Parochial Schools 1846-1870 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1932). In Ibid,
168.
72
Ibid.
73
Minutes of Synod, 1847. Covenanter, II (July, 1847), 364.
68
establishing church run parochial schools can be ascertained by the same report to Synod which
notes that church members were not really interested in having parochial Christian schools. It
notes, “The prejudice in the public mind against such an institution, and the fear of losing the
money appropriated by the [civil] government for the support of [local state] schools—and the
general indifference of our people to the importance of religious schools.”74
The modern R.P.C.N.A.’s failure to identify the wickedness of state schools in her
Testimony and allowance of her members to send their children to such satanic institutions is
rooted in the failure of the church leadership during the mid-19th century to press the issue and
insist that all members give their children an explicitly Christian education. Their synod rulings
during this period reveal that they had a theoretical understanding of this issue and what was at
stake but were unwilling to keep applying it to life. If it had been emphasized and made an issue
of discipline, they probably would have lost some members. But in the long run they would have
been far better off. In 1930 the R.P.C.N.A. had 96 congregations and 6 mission stations. By 1964
it had 68 congregations and 4 mission stations.75 In the late 1800s, the R.P.C.N.A. had around
12,000 members. By the time the 1980 Testimony came out, it would be closer to 6,000
members.
Great Social Benefits?
Second, we take issue with the Testimony’s statement that “public schools have provided
great social benefits” (p. 69). This is an incredibly unwise statement given the fact that it was
made in 1980 long after Jehovah, the Bible, prayer, the law of God and Jesus Christ were
excluded from the public schools in the United States. In 1947, Everson v. Board of Education of
the township of Ewing, the US Supreme Court ruled that the federal neutrality must be upheld at
the state level. Therefore, the mediocre non-denominational Bible lessons that took place at
public schools after class were put to an end as well. All verbal or public prayers to God were
put to an end. Teachers have even been fired for having a Bible on their desk. In the name of
neutrality and fairness, the state schools in America have been thoroughly de-Christianized.
While learning how to read and write is a good thing, how can schools which are secular
humanistic indoctrination centers be good for society? Since by law, state school teachers cannot
confess Christ before men (Mt. 10:22) or appeal to the Word of God as a standard for life or as
an authority, they by precept and example are implicitly saying that Jehovah, Jesus Christ and the
Bible are unimportant and irrelevant to education. This is the exact opposite of what the Bible
teaches for it says that “the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7) and that
human philosophies are not according to Christ (Col. 2:8). Jesus says that God has given Him
“all authority in heaven and on earth” (Mt. 28:18). This means He has authority over everything,
even the classroom and the curriculum.
74
75
Ibid.
See Alvin W. Smith, Covenanter Ministers 1930-1963 (Pittsburg: Guttender F. Press, 1964), 255-258.
69
Public schools are in open rebellion against Jesus Christ, for they reject His authority
over the classroom. Gordon Clark writes, “How does God judge the school system which says to
him ‘O God, we neither deny nor assert thy existence; and O God, we neither obey nor disobey
thy commands; we are strictly neutral’? Let no one fail to the point: The school system that
ignores God teaches its pupils to ignore God; and this is not neutrality. It is the worst form of
antagonism, for it judges God to be unimportant and irrelevant in human affairs. This is
atheism.”76 Jesus said, “He that is not with the Me is against Me” (Mt. 12:30). Are public schools
with Christ? Are they faithfully serving Him? No, they are against Him. When Christian parents
send their children to public schools, they are in essence handing their children over to the
enemy (anti-Christian statist idolaters) to be indoctrinated in the modern state religion—secular
humanism. That many such children rejected the faith of their fathers and embraced the world
spirit and heartily gave themselves over to the lust of the flesh (fornication, adultery,
drunkenness, drugs, etc.) should come as no surprise. Would anyone be surprised if a child that
spent several hours each day for several years at a Hindu school eventually converted to
Hinduism as a teenager? No, of course not! Yet countless Christian fathers have bought into the
myth that public schools are neutral and send their children to hell in the process. R.J.
Rushdoony writes,
If education is in any sense a preparation for life, then its concern is religious. If education is at
all concerned with truth, it is again religious. If education is vocational, it deals with calling, a
basically religious concept. It would be absurd to reduce preparation for life, truth and calling to
an exclusively religious meaning in any parochial sense, but it is obvious that these and other
aspects of education are inescapably religious. As Whitehead observed, “The essence of
education is that it be religious.” The public or state schools have thus been inescapably
religious. Their “common faith” has been described as “made up of elements provided by
Rousseau, Jefferson, August Comte, and John Dewey.” “Civil religion” is an apt designation for
this “faith.” As one educator observed, “America’s faith in education has been called by a
European visitor the “national religion of America….”77
To argue that public schools “promote the general welfare” or provide “great social
benefits” when they do not promote obedience to Jesus Christ and His law is ludicrous. Christian
parents have a responsibility to pass on to their children a distinctly Christian world and life
view. A covenant child’s education must be permeated with Christian ethics or values. Every
subject must be taught in accordance with the Christian worldview and must be “Christocentric.”
Paul writes, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down
strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the
knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ….” (2 Cor.
10:4-5). In public schools, every subject and discussion is an anti-Christian stronghold that needs
to be pulled down. State schools advocate evolution, abortion, homosexuality, cross dressing,
76
77
Gordon H. Clark, A Christian Philosophy of Education (Jefferson, MD: The Trinity Foundation, 1988 [1946]), 73.
The Messianic Character of American Education (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1963), 315-316.
70
relativistic ethics and the worship of the Molech state. They have no foundation whatsoever for
teaching ethics. Therefore, I ask the authors of the Testimony: How can parents be faithful to
Christ and His command to instill in their children a Christian world and life view if they send
their children into the satanic lion’s den of public education? Every thought is to be brought into
captivity to the obedience of Christ, not to the obedience of the heathen state. In addition, how
can it be lawful or Christ-like to send covenant children into public schools when their education
is required to be accompanied by biblical discipline? Biblical teaching is to be accompanied by
reproof, correction, admonition and even physical chastisement when necessary. Since biblical
correction is explicitly forbidden by public schools, the children’s admonition will be rooted in
secular humanism and statism not biblical ethics. The satanic admonition that children receive in
public schools is designed to promote a personality and behavioral change in an explicitly antiChristian direction (e.g., the acceptance of relativism, religious pluralism, homosexual behavior
and marriage, socialism, multiculturalism, climate change, etc.). Even if an admonition is
outwardly correct (such as do not lie or steal), the reason behind the admonition is not the
glorification of God through love and obedience to Christ but secular humanistic nonsense.
Public school discipline is given in terms of utility to the state rather than in terms of service,
adoration and glorification of God.
The Testimony recognizes that there are serious problems with state education for they
say, “Parents should take care to counteract any unbiblical teaching given to their children,
whether in public or Christian schools” (p. 70). But this supposedly corrective statement is
totally inadequate from a biblical perspective. If every topic in education should be taught from
an explicitly Christian perspective and the purpose of education is to instill a Christian world and
life view, would not Christian parents have to refute virtually everything advocated by public
schools? The Testimony assumes that one can have a decent education without Christ and the
Bible. It apparently assumes that there are a lot of areas of neutrality that believers have with
unbelievers. But such thinking is incorrect and leads to syncretism and apostasy. Once again, ask
yourself, can an education that is not founded upon Jesus Christ, God and the sacred Scriptures
be a good education? Can an education that deliberately excludes God, Christ, the Ten
Commandments and the Bible from education be good? Can an education that does not promote
love, devotion and obedience to Jesus the Messiah as King over kings be a good education? The
answer to these questions is obvious. It is immoral, anti-Christian and a violation of parental
baptismal vows to send one’s covenant children into state schools. Yet, the Testimony ignores
this reality and assumes that sending one’s covenant children to state Molech schools is perfectly
fine. On page 69 the Testimony says, “Local schools vary widely, however, according to the
standards of the community and the quality of the teachers. All Christians, especially those who
are teachers, school administrators or board members, should bear witness to the whole truth of
God as it relates to education. Mt. 12:30; 2 Sam. 23:3-4.”
This statement made in 1980 is inexplicable. It perhaps could be defended if it was made
in 1795 or 1820 but not in 1980. People are not allowed to bear witness to the truth of the Word
of God in public schools today. Such thinking is delusional. Evangelicals with all their numbers,
71
political clout, money and lawyers could not get a Christless moment of silence in state schools.
With incredible effort they could not even get intelligent design (not creation ex nihilo by God
the Father through the pre-incarnate Son) into the public schools. The schools are run by antiChristian government teachers’ unions and exist under the authority of godless judges.
If the Testimony were biblical on this topic, it would unequivocally condemn state
schools as anti-Christian, ungodly, wicked, satanic institutions that must be avoided at all costs.
Like the Presbyterians of the First and Second Reformations as well as the Covenanters through
at least 1850, they should be advocating explicitly Christian schools run by local sessions in
conjunction with covenant heads who are church members in good standing. The Testimony
should be radically changed on this topic to reflect its own words which teach, “God is the
source of all truth. The knowledge which man can attain merely reflects part of God’s creation,
and cannot properly be understood apart from God. Therefore there can be no true education
without a knowledge of God and His dealings with man, as revealed in the Scriptures…
Christians are to ask the aid of the Holy Spirit in the educational task” (p. 68-69). Unfortunately,
the authors of the Testimony go on to justify current practice in the R.P.C.N.A. instead of being
consistent with their own words. This practice not only is inconsistent with what a testimony
ought to be, but reflects an unchristian cowardice which is afraid to stand up for the truth.
It is our desire, prayer and hope that the R.P.C.N.A. would reform its subordinate
standards so that they would be fully in accord with the Word of God and the original
Westminster Standards. If there are ministers or ruling elders in the R.P.C.N.A. that disagree with
any aspects of this critique, we would heartily welcome a counter critique in writing or a public
debate on these issues. The point of this biblical critique is to seek unity in the truth and to help
stop the arbitrariness and persecution of strict confessionalists that has been characteristic of the
R.P.C.N.A.’s recent history.
Copyright 2015 © Brian M. Schwertley
HOME PAGE
72