The Protestant Antidote to Modern Schismatical Disunity being
chapter 4 of Greg Barrow's book, The Covenanted
Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.
Hello, I'm Larry Berger.
You're about to hear the most clear exposition
of the Biblical Protestant doctrine of terms of
communion that I believe can be found anywhere
today.
Regrettably, time and circumstantial restrictions have prevented me
from giving a prefatory overview of this subject
and its vital importance.
However, as the title of these tapes indicates,
the doctrine and practice of our faithful Protestant
forefathers concerning church membership and the Biblical requirements
for coming to the Lord's table are truly
the Protestant antidote to today's schismatical practices.
They sought for, and even vowed themselves to,
true unity, that is, unity that comes, as
Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1.10, from
being of the same mind and in the
same judgment concerning Biblical doctrine, worship, and church
government and discipline, in contrast to the false
unity promoted today, which is but unity in
name and utterly destructive of truth and godliness.
As you listen, please consider whether what you're
currently being taught and what so-called Protestant
churches today are practicing concerning the Lord's table
are actually the Biblical Protestantism of the Reformation.
If not, why not, and what then are
we to do?
As an introductory answer to these questions, I've
decided to include here my narrator's preface for
Eschewing Ecclesiastical Tyranny, the Duty of Christ's Sheep,
which is Appendix G of the Covenanted Reformation
Defended.
Although this preface does not deal directly with
the Biblical teaching on terms of communion, I
believe it is nevertheless very relevant, and I
trust it will prove a helpful forerunner to
Barrow's treatment, one that provokes us to love
and good works and a greater appreciation of
our Savior's mercy.
May God richly bless you as you hear
expounded the Biblical old paths wherein is rest
for our souls.
Jeremiah 6.16 Please note that Barrow's entire
book is free on Stillwater's Revival Books website,
www.swrb.com.
It is also available in hardcover from Stillwaters,
along with a treasure trove of the finest
Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in
the world today.
Stillwaters can be reached at 780-450-3730,
or by email at swrb at swrb.com.
Let us therefore remember that whenever Church unity
is commended to us, this is required, that
while our minds agree in Christ, our wills
should also be joined with mutual benevolence in
Christ.
Paul, therefore, while urging us to it, takes
it as his foundation that there is one
God, one faith, and one baptism.
Indeed, wherever Paul teaches us to feel the
same and will the same, he immediately adds,
He means that apart from the Lord's word,
there is not an agreement of believers, but
a faction of wicked men.
We therefore conclude that among the godly, the
communion of the Church ought not to extend
so far that if it degenerates into profane
and corrupted rites, they have to follow it
headlong.
Some will therefore ask me what counsel I
would like to give to a believer who
thus dwells in some Egypt or Babylon, where
he may not worship God purely, but is
forced by the common practice to accommodate himself
to bad things.
The first advice would be to leave, that
is to relocate if he could.
If someone has no way to depart, I
would counsel him to consider whether it would
be possible for him to abstain from all
idolatry in order to preserve himself pure and
spotless toward God in both body and soul.
Then, since we are to abstain from all
such idolatry, let him worship God in private,
praying him to restore his poor church to
its right estate.
Hello, I'm Larry Berger.
These powerful quotes from Book 4, Chapter 2
of John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion,
and from his anti-Nicodemite writings, forthcoming from
Protestant Heritage Press, demonstrate that while we are
to place the highest premium on the unity
of the Church, we must be certain that
it is true scriptural unity we are promoting,
and not a satanic substitute.
Indeed, this worthy Reformer is emphatic that true
unity is so precious to Christ and his
people, that if anything but the real thing
is presented to the Church, she is to
reject it, and wait prayerfully for such time
that God will bring about true, lasting unity.
To accept tawdry substitutes for biblical unity, those
that promote unity at the expense of any
of the least of the truths of the
Word of God, those that make unity an
end in itself, rather than subservient to the
promotion and preservation of the truth and the
pure worship of God, is not to preserve
Christ's body whole, but to rip her into
a thousand pieces, and to court the wrath
of her jealous husband.
Such is the state of affairs in the
Church today, where it seems all schemes but
the biblical plan for unity are championed, and
where when so-called unity is attained, truth
and purity are always the losers.
One of the precious fundamental teachings of Scripture
recovered in the Protestant Reformation was the doctrine
of private judgment, that is, that each individual
Christian has both the right and the responsibility
to test all that is put before him
for acceptance, and to believe and to practice
that and only that which is agreeable to
the Scriptures.
Thus, the Westminster Confession of Faith asserts, God
alone is the Lord of the conscience, and
hath 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, so that to believe
such doctrines or to obey such commandments out
of conscience is to betray true liberty of
conscience, and the requiring of an implicit faith
and an absolute and blind obedience is to
destroy liberty of conscience and reason also.
That's chapter 20, section 2.
In stark contrast, the Roman Catholic Church maintains
the infallibility of the Pope in matters of
faith or morals, and asserts that it is
the domain of the Holy Mother Church, not
that of individual believers, to determine the true
sense or meaning of the Scriptures.
Thus, in the Creed of Pope Pius IV,
1564, we find, I also admit the Holy
Scripture, according to that sense or meaning which
our Holy Mother, the Church, has held and
does hold, to which Church it belongs to
judge of the true sense and interpretation of
the Scriptures, neither will I ever take and
interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous
consent of the Fathers.
Notwithstanding these blasphemous and despotic assertions, however, private
judgment, as will be shown, is the privilege
and duty of all believers.
Indeed, it is essential to the unity and
purity of Christ's Church, so much so that
there can be no biblical unity without it,
and it also affords the last defense against
the kind of arbitrary, soul-damaging, and even
damning, tyranny and error exemplified by, but not
limited to, the Roman Catholic Church.
Lamentably, churches wearing the name Protestant have, since
the time of the Protestant Reformation, increasingly embraced
numerous Romanist errors.
These include a false and dangerous conception of
the visible Church, tyrannical doctrines of ecclesiastical and
civil authority, corruptions of the sacraments, false views
of free will and the nature of man,
and other points of Arminianism in doctrine, Arminianism
in worship, such as the use of choirs,
celebration of holy days like Christmas and Easter,
Church calendars with their various days and seasons
and pictures of Christ, and perversions of Church
government and discipline, for example, Episcopalianism, Congregationalism, and
Independence.
As you will hear on this tape, some
have even gone to the point of denying
the fundamental doctrine of sola scriptura, that is,
that the Bible is the alone infallible rule
of faith and practice, by denying private judgment,
which is a natural and necessary consequence of
sola scriptura.
Because even this most vital teaching is being
eroded and attacked, which, if it continues, will
plunge the Church back into a full-fledged
slavery to error and idolatry, as was the
case before the Reformation, I'd like to spend
a few moments considering how prominent the doctrine
of private judgment is in the Scriptures.
By so doing, I hope to fix more
firmly in our minds the privilege and duty
we have to eschew, or shun, ecclesiastical tyranny,
and thereby to enhance the usefulness of Mr.
Barrow's concise explanation and defense of private judgment.
By giving careful heed to the Word of
God and to the testimony of our faithful
Reformed forefathers, to which testimony the Bible commands
us to listen, Proverbs 1.8, Jeremiah 6
.16, Hebrews 11.4, 13.17, and so
forth, we will be led to a fresh
appreciation of one of the chief benefits purchased
for us by the blood and sufferings of
the Lord Jesus Christ, and to a renewed
holy hatred of all that is contrary to
this precious benefit.
By this means, we will be equipped to
recover and maintain the true biblical unity of
Christ's Church and end the multitudinous schisms currently
afflicting her and grieving and dishonoring her Lord.
The Scriptures confirm and urge the right and
duty of private judgment in numerous ways.
First, we see it in the biblical conception
of authority, where God alone bears absolute, unqualified
rule over men's consciences.
The Lord commands us, Be not servants to
men, 1 Corinthians 7.23, while insisting as
the ultimate reason for believing and obeying Him
that I am the Lord thy God, Exodus
20.2, and so forth.
Thus the apostles expressly said they were only
helpers of our faith and not lords over
it, 2 Corinthians 1.24, and referred to
their ministry as existing only for the purpose
of edification, 2 Corinthians 10.8 and 13
.10. They expressly taught they had authority only
insofar as their officiations were according to the
truth, 2 Corinthians 13.8, and not simply
because they claimed a title and held an
ecclesiastical office.
We can only give implicit faith, then, to
the Lord God and not to any, even
the most faithful church or leader.
To do otherwise is to ascribe to them
an incommunicable attribute of God, blasphemous, idolatrous, and
perilous indeed.
Moreover, every command to submit to church leadership
necessarily implies this duty.
The Bible tells us that we are to
submit to, emulate, and follow faithful leaders and
churches, for example, 1 Timothy 5.17 and
Hebrews 13.17. Faithful is not here a
meaningless adjective, but rather presupposes sound scriptural evaluation
of this leadership on our parts.
The same applies to God's command to receive
faithful doctrine.
We are as well frankly and soberly told
of the existence of false teachers not outside
the church, but within the church.
We must be certain here, however, to distinguish
the various types of false teachers.
Some men, like Apollos, are godly and competent,
but simply uninstructed in the whole counsel of
God.
Others, like Nicodemus, John 3, have no business
teaching, not yet at least, as they are
incompetent in their doctrinal knowledge.
Others have been soundly instructed, but, like Peter,
have fallen back into their old sin and
errors.
Still others are described in the most fearful
terms, Satan's ministers, 2 Corinthians 11.15, deceivers
and being deceived, 2 Timothy 3.13, twice
dead and clouds without water, Jude 12, and
in the case of the man of sin,
who the Reformers identified as the office of
the Pope, one who exalts himself above God
and is, like Judas, a son of perdition,
2 Thessalonians 2.3. Obviously, if we are
to identify any of these errant teachers, we
must judge them ourselves, individually, by criteria independent
of their mere profession to be teachers and
leaders or faithful churches and denominations, or their
insistence that the Bible supposedly says we are
to submit to them.
And, in fact, this is exactly what we
observe in the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit
highly commends such examples for our imitation.
Thus the Bereans are said to be more
noble than the Thessalonians, because they not only
heard the Apostle Paul, but heard him with
a ready-minded, careful discernment, searching the Scriptures
daily whether those things were so.
Acts 17.11 Likewise, the Ephesian elders in
Revelation 2 were praised by Christ, because they
tried them which said they were apostles and
were not, and found them liars.
Revelation 2.2 Whereas the churches of Pergamos
and Thyatira were sternly rebuked for merely tolerating
false guides, warning that those who tolerated these
teachers, though they themselves were orthodox, were nevertheless
subject to the judgments sent upon the false
teachers.
See also Revelation 18.4 Finally, as if
these overwhelming scriptural evidences and arguments weren't enough,
we have the plain command of God throughout
the entire Bible.
Examples are so numerous that we are forced
to limit ourselves to just a few.
In Deuteronomy 13, we are forewarned that God
will test us by allowing false prophets to
arise who will have every seemingly good qualification
to commend us to believe them, and yet
whose doctrine will lead us away from the
true God.
Solomon is emphatic concerning the need to flee
from error and erroneous teachers.
Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that
causeth to err from the words of knowledge.
Proverbs 19.27 Both Isaiah and the Lord
Jesus Christ Himself warn us that if we
follow unsound instruction, we will suffer the severe
consequences.
For the leaders of this people cause them
to err, and they that are led of
them are destroyed.
His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant,
they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark.
Let them alone, they be blind leaders of
the blind, and if the blind lead the
blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Isaiah 9.16 and 56.10, Matthew 15
.14 And we should note here, as was
alluded above, that it is not simply teachers
who we regard to be non-Christians or
obstinate opponents to the truth that we are
to take heed of and avoid.
This ought to be evident, for a teacher
as such should be judged by his teaching,
not by whether we think he'll spend eternity
in heaven, though this is obviously a vital
matter.
Just because he's qualified for heaven does not
mean he's qualified to teach and lead Christ's
sheep.
It is also plainly taught in the verses
themselves, for they do not say that the
primary reason the people are being led astray
is because the teachers are unsaved, though in
many cases this is indeed the ultimate reason
for their teaching error, but because they are
blind to and ignorant of the truth, and
their doctrine causes the people to err.
We are thus forbidden every bit as much
from sitting ourselves under ignorant, unsafe teachers as
we are from sitting under those who are
likely unsaved, ravenous wolves.
Many more instances can be found in the
New Testament.
Indeed, one need only consider that most of
the New Testament itself was written to refute
errors in erring teachers and thereby to confirm
and protect Christ's sheep.
Thus, in a very real sense, the New
Testament en masse is a direct commandment to
judge and reject all false teaching and teachers.
For the sake of brevity, however, we will
consider only one more clear command, Romans 16,
17.
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned, and avoid them.
Notice that there are three commands here, two
explicit and one implicit.
The implicit command is that we ensure that
we ourselves know the apostolic doctrine, the whole
counsel of God, Acts 20.26, the doctrine
which we have learned.
The first explicit command is to mark, that
is, to identify, to make careful note of,
those who deviate from this doctrine, thereby causing
schisms and all manner of damage to the
Church of Christ.
The second explicit command flows from it.
We are to avoid, shun, or eschew all
such teachers, churches, or denominations.
For it is obvious that if one teacher
who thus causes schism is to be avoided,
how much more an entire church or denomination
which is causing such division by its false
doctrines.
Interestingly, the command to mark in this passage
is the same Greek word used in Philippians
3.17, where we are commanded to mark
faithful teachers and to emulate their faithfulness.
Finally, note how serious a matter it is
for us to identify and separate from such
false teachers and teachings.
Paul beseeches us, earnestly entreating that we do
so, and commands us by invoking the terrible
name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This single consideration alone, the invocation of the
name of the Lord, recall the language in
Exodus, I am the Lord thy God, should
overwhelmingly compel us to follow through carefully on
this command.
All the more should we do so when
in conjunction with this we consider that it
is taught either expressly or by implication from
one end of the Bible to the other.
Even from this cursory view of the doctrine
of private judgment, its prominence in Scripture and
the great care employed by the Holy Spirit
in communicating it to us are manifest.
It is precisely because Christ's sheep do not
use this precious gift and then separate from
those who are ignorant blind guides or who
are obstinately holding to error that the blindness,
error, disunity, and decline in practical godliness characterizing
the church today continue and thrive.
With the exercise of private judgment these grievous
sins could not continue.
Without the exercise of private judgment they will
not cease.
Dear brethren, we have a command not from
the reformers, but from the Lord Jesus Christ
to use this private judgment and to act
on it accordingly.
Indeed, we have more than a command.
He has purchased it for us with his
own blood and given us the Holy Spirit
in order to employ it.
He will bless us if we practice it
scripturally and his anger will follow us if
we don't.
He is honored greatly when we faithfully exercise
it.
It is the height of impiety and blasphemy
when we neglect it.
Let us then not be those who maintain
and even widen the breaches in the walls
of Christ Jerusalem, but those who instead endeavor
to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace, Ephesians 4.3. May
God bless all of us with peace and
joy as we stand fast in the freedom
wherewith Christ has made us free.
The Protestant antidote to modern schismatical disunity being
chapter 4 of Greg Barrow's book The Covenanted
Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.
Misrepresentation number 4.
The Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton, PRCE, is
guilty of imposing the traditions of men upon
the conscience by requiring terms of communion that
are unscriptural.
Men are always inclined to be critical and
misrepresentative when they haven't taken adequate time to
understand the issues and study the works of
those they are attacking.
Mr. Bacon, as demonstrated in his defense Departed,
is such a man.
It is one thing to read carefully and
digest the arguments of one's opponent, and another
thing to read one or two short articles
for the purpose of drawing numerous inaccurate inferences
from them, though the articles in this case
are exceedingly clear and in no way support
Mr. Bacon's misconstruals.
Though there are obvious theological differences between Mr.
Bacon and the PRCE, before continuing, I must
address the issues of fairness and integrity.
Has Mr. Bacon accurately represented what the PRCE
believes, or has he built a caricature of
our belief in an attempt to discredit us?
I contend that Mr. Bacon has so severely,
either intentionally or ignorantly, overlooked the plain statements
of David Steele, the Reformed Presbytery, and the
PRCE that he should be profoundly ashamed of
himself.
I have been involved in many debates over
the years, and I can honestly say that
never has an opponent so blatantly ignored our
plainest statements.
Prejudice in this form and intensity must be
directly answered by demonstrating that Mr. Bacon has
possessed adequate information to leave him without excuse.
I intend to do this by setting Mr.
Bacon's statements directly against what Pastor Steele, the
Reformed Presbytery, and the PRCE have said.
We, as a session, sent Mr. Bacon many
free books and articles to help him correctly
determine what we believe.
The careful reader will notice that in his
defense departed, he cites two or three small
sources of information, whereas he had been given
many volumes for his perusal.
The point I am making is this.
If Mr. Bacon really cared to honestly and
fairly debate this issue with us, he would
never have been so foolish as to ignore
our most explicit statements.
I conclude that Mr. Bacon really did not
want to debate, but rather wanted to slander
and abuse the PRCE in retaliation for our
efforts in dissociating from his pretended presbytery.
Considering that Mr. Bacon had been given free
access to most of the cited works I
am about to quote, I urge you, dear
reader, to ask yourself these questions.
Has Mr. Bacon been fair to the position
he is attacking?
Has he clearly demonstrated his opponent's position from
their own works?
Has he done his homework?
Are these acts of poor scholarship or malicious
intent, or both?
The following scripture characterizes the substance of our
response to this current misrepresentation.
Then I sent unto him, saying, There are
no such things done as thou sayest, but
thou faintest them out of thine own heart.
Nehemiah 6.8 A man that beareth false
witness against his neighbor is a maul, and
a sword, and a sharp arrow.
Proverbs 25.18 As we survey the evidence
in the next several pages, I think the
reader will be amazed at how completely Mr.
Bacon has misled his readers.
I certainly had anticipated something stronger from a
man of his gifts than outright denial of
our explicit statements.
That he has risen no higher than this
is quite telling as to the bankruptcy of
his positive position.
To prove that Mr. Bacon has totally ignored
our explicit statements while substituting his own fictitious
fantasies in their place, please consider the following
examples.
Mr. Bacon has not done his homework.
1.
Mr. Bacon misrepresents how we view our own
church standards when he says, quote, It must
seem strange to some who are reading this
to be faced with the fact that there
are some who call themselves Protestants, yea, Reformed
and Presbyterian Protestants, who appear to place their
own traditions as the constitution of the church
rather than Scripture.
That's from Defense Departed.
Again, the national covenant or confession of faith
is to be sworn not because the church
has required it, but because it is an
accurate representation of the sense of God's law.
It is not, as the Steelites claim, because
the church's testimony tells us what to believe.
The church's testimony must be judged according to
the word of God and not vice versa.
Defense Departed.
Do we, the so-called Steelites, claim that
the church's testimony tells us what to believe?
Has Mr. Bacon honestly represented our position?
The Reformed Presbytery of Scotland responds directly to
this absurd notion.
Quote, Convinced of the self-evidencing power, intrinsic
worth, and divine excellencies of the holy scriptures,
we ever wish them to be considered as
a complete and sufficient rule in themselves, independent
of oral law, tradition of the fathers, or
any human invention, whatever, and in opposition to
that absurd notion that the true sense depends
upon the church.
Can it be stated any more clearly than
this?
asks Mr. Barrow.
At the same time, in our practical application
of the inspired oracles, we consider them to
be a rule as consistently understood and properly
applied.
For though they be an absolutely perfect and
sufficient rule in themselves, yet it is possible
to mistake their true meaning.
But this we endeavor to guard against, the
conduct of those who, while they pretend to
believe in the divine authority of scriptures, do
meanwhile evidently wrest them, imposing glosses which make
one part of the sacred volume to contradict
another, and which lead us away from the
true scope and design of the whole.
And that's from the Reformed Presbytery's explanation and
defense of the terms of communion, page 161.
Speaking of using confessions of faith and covenants
as a term of communion, the Reformed Presbytery
states, quote, It is only after mature deliberation,
carefully comparing them with the word of God,
and receiving full conviction in our own minds
of their being wholly founded upon it, that
we consider the confession and catechisms, or any
other human composure whatsoever, as properly entitled to
our belief, and deserving to be ranked amongst
the subordinate standards of our church.
But after being convinced of their agreeableness to
the infallible rule, we cheerfully receive them.
It is not with the remotest intention of
supplying a defect in the oracles of truth,
which we ever consider a complete rule in
themselves, nor is it at all in the
view of putting either the confession, or any
other book in the world on a level
with the Bible, that we adopt these explanatory
standards.
But purely to ascertain the true meaning of
Scripture, help us to understand one another in
our church fellowship, and through these mediums to
transmit a faithful testimony for truth from generation
to generation.
Again, the explanation in defense of the terms
of communion, page 161.
A false witness shall not be unpunished, and
he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
Proverbs 19.5 2.
Mr. Bacon says, The Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton has adopted this entire line of thinking
by the approach of first accept the doctrine,
then you can understand it later.
But this is the very kind of implicit
faith required by Rome and condemned by our
confession.
Again, from Defense Departed.
Is it true that David Steele, the Reformed
Presbytery, and the PRCE require implicit faith?
In their preface to the Arkansas Renovation, a
committee of the Reformed Presbytery made up of
David Steele, Robert Alexander, and John Clyde, state,
Quote, The reader may be assured that neither
we nor the Reformed Presbytery, whose committee we
are, claim papal infallibility or Christian perfection, nor
do we ask implicit faith in our documents.
But we sincerely believe ourselves that the Arkansas
Renovation and the bond to which the foregoing
statements are prefixed will be found on examination
to be sound, faithful, and in nothing contrary
to the Word of God.
As from the Arkansas Renovation.
And again, beware of acting implicit faith.
It is long since the error falsely imputed
to us was broached among professing covenants.
For example, we heard from the mouth of
a minister in that body more than a
quarter of a century ago the declaration in
the pulpit, Quote, The first term of communion
is the only proper term of communion in
the Church, and the time is not distant,
we trust, when she will have no more.
The first term of communion being that the
Bible alone is the infallible rule of faith
and life.
That is, when all the displays of a
covenant God's justice, mercy, faithfulness, etc., in dealing
with the Church and her anti-Christian opposers,
shall have passed into oblivion an unbelieving and
ungrateful hope or desire.
The Protestant world is so denominated because simply
of a solemn protest against Rome's impious claim
to infallibility and cognate invasions of Messiah's prerogatives.
Attach the attribute of infallibility to any of
the subordinate standards of our Christian profession, and
we are instantly deprived of them all as
a near and necessary consequence.
We sincerely hope that the Covenanter, that is,
James M.
Wilson, will arrive at clearer light on the
general subject of creeds and confessions, and if
so, we are sure he will come to
a better temper.
It is part of the known character of
the two witnesses that they contend for the
faith once delivered to the saints as the
nearest and surest way to victory.
Again, we would say to the reader, beware
of exercising implicit faith in human authority as
well as testimony, and hold in dread all
assumptions of infallibility by Pope, Prelate, or Presbyterian,
and especially Reformed Presbyterians standing by the exclusive
supremacy of Zion's King.
And that's from David Steele's The Two Witnesses,
page 41.
David Steele adds, Let no one imagine that
I defend symbols of faith from force of
habit, or because they are old, perfect, immutable,
or infallible, for I have for many years
repeatedly said the contrary, that no document framed
by wisdom, learning, or piety of any uninspired
man or body of such is either perfect
or immutable, and much less infallible.
No, I do not plead for immutability, but
for the faithfulness of subordinate standards, both of
doctrine and practice.
And that's from Steele's Reminiscences, pages 135 and
136.
Now, does David Steele or other so-called
Steelites even remotely resemble Mr. Bacon's caricature?
Do we teach implicit faith?
If the reader had access to this information,
as did Mr. Bacon, would he have written
what Mr. Bacon wrote?
All he had to do was read the
books we provided or listen to Pastor Price's
set of tapes on our Terms of Communion,
nineteen cassettes available at Stillwater's Revival Books, to
be forever convinced of the contrary.
Instead, he ignored the evidence and printed his
vain imaginations.
This clearly shows a serious lack of scholarship
and integrity.
These six things doth the Lord hate, yea,
seven are an abomination unto him, a proud
look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed
innocent blood, and heart that deviseth wicked imaginations,
feet that be swift in running to mischief,
a false witness that speaketh lies, and he
that soweth discord among brethren, Proverbs 6, 16
through 19.
Three.
Speaking of the solemn league and covenant as
a term of communion, Mr. Bacon says, quote,
So the Steelite turns that which was good
and useful and lawful for the Church of
Scotland to use in a time of national
and ecclesiastical distress to that which is nothing
more than the imposition of traditions upon the
conscience.
That's from Defense Departed.
On December 18, 1996, in an email, Mr.
Bacon writes, Necessity implies some rule other than
Scripture which binds the conscience.
If you wish to take the solemn league
and covenant, which I assume you have done,
no bother to me.
However, the term necessity implies precisely the position
that you all have now taken, which I
believe to be directly contrary to the doctrine
of sola scriptura.
Close quote.
Does the PRCE impose the traditions of men
upon others when they require the solemn league
and covenant as a term of communion?
Is this a denial of sola scriptura?
The Reformed Presbytery responds, quote, Concerning these covenants,
some have proposed the query, in what sense
can they be said, as they are in
our testimony, to be of divine authority or
obligation?
We reply, the divine authority of heaven's great
sovereign is evidently interposed in requiring us to
enter into such covenants, vow unto the Lord
your God, and when once we have entered
into them, the same divine authority binds us
to performance, hey that, which thou hast vowed.
Add to these that the great and dreadful
name, the Lord our God, is invoked in
the solemn transaction, while His declarative glory among
men is deeply concerned in the faithful fulfillment
of our engagements.
So that, besides the intrinsic obligation of the
covenants, viewed simply as human deeds, whereby men
bind their souls, there is in all such
covenants an obligation of divine authority, requiring first
to make and then to perform our covenants,
from the invocation of the divine name, considering
Jehovah as witness and avenger, and from the
interfering with the divine glory in the keeping
or violating of our oath.
Hence in the Scripture the same oath is,
in one respect, considered as the covenant of
the man giving his hand, and in another
respect as the Lord's covenant, whose glory is
concerned in it.
See, for example, Ezekiel 17, 11-21.
Our testimony, if properly attended to, explains itself,
telling us that covenants are of divine authority
or obligation as having their foundation upon the
word of God.
And that, again, is from the explanation and
defense of the terms of communion, page 161.
David Steele adds, quote, Even the doctrinal propositions
of our confessions and catechisms are received not
because they are inspired or infallible, but simply
because they are, in the apprehension of the
Christian, agreeable to the Holy Scriptures.
Much more does this obviously apply to our
solemn covenants as embodying the heroic achievements of
our martyred and witnessing fathers.
Add to these all the real attainments of
those who survived the overthrow of the Second
Reformation.
And that's from Pastor Steele's printed correspondences with
the editor of the Covenanter magazine, that is,
James M.
Wilson, which is published by Stillwater Survival Books
under the title Apostasy in the RPCNA.
The evidence thus far is compelling and clear.
Mr. Bacon was not even trying to accurately
represent David Steele, the Reformed Presbytery, or the
PRCE.
Though this should be enough to convince those
who are open to hard evidence, I intend
to belabor this point so that Mr. Bacon's
dishonesty and irresponsibility will become abundantly evident, and
so that none will ever have any justifiable
reason for concluding that the so-called Steelites
teach anything but historic Reformed doctrine.
What more can be done than to prove
that the Covenanters have, for hundreds of years,
been saying the exact opposite of what Mr.
Bacon represents them to say?
If our public and explicit statements will not
be accepted as our statement of belief, then
what can be done to convince the gainsayer?
Let the proud be ashamed, for they dealt
perversely with me without a cause.
But I will meditate in thy precepts.
Let those that fear thee turn unto me,
and those that have known my testimonies.
Psalm 119, 78, 79 4.
Mr. Bacon writes, Quote, But one must remember
that the Steelites invest a similar meaning in
the term historical testimony that the Romanist does
with his inspired tradition of the fathers.
That's from Defense Departed.
Pastor David Steel aptly answers Mr. Bacon, rightly
dividing that which is our alone infallible standard
in matters relating to salvation from the fallible
standards which are to be included in terms
of communion.
Quote, No symbols of faith and order framed
by uninspired men are faultless, much less infallible,
either in substance or form.
Otherwise, they would not be subordinate.
Divine truth is the sole ground of saving
faith and is not to be confounded with
terms of communion as ignorance and presumption commonly
do, and as Mr. Bacon has overtly done.
Again, the testimony of Christ's witnesses in all
its integral parts is always and necessarily progressive
until it shall have been finished.
Even their statements of doctrine, their abstract and
distinctive principles may and often must be restated
in diversified language to meet the ever-shifting
position and subtle sophisms of adversaries.
Also, our covenants, National and Solemn League, may
and ought to be renewed, not that they
have become old, as many say, but that
they are to be owned as obligatory upon
us and a sense of their permanent obligation
deepened upon our own souls and exhibited to
others by the solemnity of an oath.
That's from the Reformed Presbytery, A Short Vindication
of the Covenanted Reformation, page 19.
And I will give power unto my two
witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand, two
hundred, and threescore days clothed in sackcloth.
Revelation 11.3 Commenting on the two witnesses
of Revelation 11.3, Pastor Steele says, Quote,
Consider the number of these witnesses.
They are two, as this is the smallest
number that can establish truth, Deuteronomy 17.6,
19.15. The lawgiver himself, addressing the Jews,
says, It is written in your law that
the testimony of two men is true, John
8.17. Not that we are to receive
the testimony of every two men.
The experience of all men is that a
false witness will utter lies, and it is
sometimes found that two may agree together to
tempt the Spirit of the Lord, Acts 5
.9. But on the supposition that the witnesses
are competent and credible, then it is the
decision of Christ, endorsed by the common sentiment
of mankind, that we receive the witness of
such men, 1 John 5.9. And although
the witness of God is greater than that
of any number of men, still human witnesses
do not need to be inspired to render
their testimony credible, for then, if the witnesses
are inspired, as the reader will perceive, the
testimony is that of God, and, of course,
ceases to be human testimony.
This point is of the greatest moment since
not one word uttered by these two witnesses
is inspired in the proper and formal sense
of inspiration.
This is too great an honor to confer
upon the very chiefest of our covenanted confessors
or martyrs.
It savors too much of Rome.
And that's from Steele's The Two Witnesses, page
7.
Human witnesses do not need to be inspired
to render their testimony credible.
When did right testimony ever oppose one jot
or tittle of the Word of God?
Is all human testimony to be rejected because
some men lie?
Will we throw away the gold because it's
mixed with the dross?
We do not plead for an infallible testimony
since that is both unscriptural and impossible for
mere men.
That which we plead for is a faithful
testimony which is in agreement with the alone
infallible standard for faith and practice, the Word
of God.
That does not mean, however, that we cannot
use credible testimony subordinate to the Word of
God to aid us in determining agreement in
doctrine, worship, discipline, and government.
The Reformed Presbytery explains, quote, Meanwhile, in exhibiting
our testimony, we make no pretensions to infallibility
or perfection.
Our design, we hope, is good, but we
are very sensible that human weakness and infirmity
must always be discernible in our best performances.
We do not assert, either with respect to
our own or the other testimonies which we
approve, that there are no incautious expressions in
these compositions.
Considering the time and the peculiarly trying circumstances
in which the compilers of them existed, and
considering that they were men of like passions
with others, it would, perhaps, be rather unreasonable
to expect so much.
But if none of the precious truths stated
and vindicated in these testimonies be given up,
if none of the errors or immoralities which
they condemn be countenanced, or, in other words,
if the whole substance be conscientiously retained, we
mean not to differ with those who may
plead that some particular modes of expression might
be altered for the better.
Let it also be carefully observed here that,
with regard to the deeds of which we
speak, that is, the scriptural testimonies and earnest
contendings of Christ's faithful witnesses, we wish to
be understood in the same sense as before
concerning the confession of faith and the covenants.
It is only after diligently perusing, pondering, and
comparing these testimonies with the word of God,
and after finding them to be founded upon
and agreeable unto it, that we mean to
rank them among the subordinate standards of our
Church.
But as two or more cannot consistently walk
together in Church fellowship unless they be agreed
in sentiment concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and
government of the Church, and concerning the proper
way of glorifying God upon earth, we reckon
it exceedingly requisite that this agreement should be
properly ascertained.
For that important purpose, amongst others, these testimonies
seem to be very much calculated, and it
is only to such of them as truly
deserve the characteristic epithets of scriptural and faithful
that we require the assent of our Church
members.
If any are disposed to question the propriety
of applying these designations, either to our own
or to the rest which we approve, we
are always ready, as opportunity offers, to reason
the matter with them.
If we can agree it is well, let
us strive together for the faith of the
gospel and continue steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine
and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and
in prayers.
If we cannot agree, we must part in
peace, for we never entertained the remotest thought
that these matters were to be adjusted by
any other weapons than those of Scripture and
reason under the influence and direction of the
Holy Spirit.
Again, the explanation and defense of the terms
of communion, pages 188 and 189.
Now, compare the above statements of the so
-called Stealites, who plead for fallible historical testimony
subordinate to God's word, with the doctrine of
tradition in the Roman Catholic Church, who pleads
for oral and papal infallibility equal to God's
word.
Lorraine Bettner defines the doctrine of Roman Catholic
tradition as follows, quote, We have seen that
the most controversial issue between Protestants and Roman
Catholics is the question of authority.
What is the final seat of authority in
religion?
And that Protestants hold that the Bible alone
is the final rule of faith and practice,
while Roman Catholics hold that it is the
Bible and tradition as interpreted by the Church.
In actual practice, the Roman Church, since the
infallibility decree of 1870, holds that the final
seat of authority is the Pope speaking for
the Church.
That's from Bettner's book Roman Catholicism, page 89.
Steal, to the contrary, comments, quote, Let no
one, however, imagine that we consider our testimony
infallible.
No, it still ranks among the subordinate standards
of our covenanted profession, and for years we
have asked cooperation in its readjustment, cooperation by
those possessing scriptural and covenant qualification.
And that's from The Reformation Advocate, volume 1,
number 9, page 259.
Has Mr. Bacon been fair?
Has he made an honest and accurate comparison
between us and the Papists?
As the reader examines the statements produced by
faithful covenanters, the so-called Stealites, is it
his impression that we want to put the
Bible on a par with anything?
In contrast to Mr. Bacon, how does the
reader interpret our first term of communion, an
acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to
be the Word of God and the alone
infallible rule of faith and practice?
What does the phrase alone infallible mean to
him?
Does it mean one among many infallible rules?
Mr. Bacon is either guilty of willful ignorance
or malicious intent.
Perhaps his intellect is so clouded with anger
and emotion that he has abandoned all desire
to argue with integrity.
Dear reader, can anyone fail to see how
Mr. Bacon has grossly misrepresented the position of
the PRCE, the Reformed Presbytery, and our faithful
covenanted forefathers?
If a false witness rise up against any
man to testify against him that which is
wrong, then both the men between whom the
controversy is shall stand before the Lord, before
the priests and the judges, which shall be
in those days.
And the judges shall make diligent inquisition and
behold, if the witness be a false witness
and hath testified falsely against his brother, then
ye shall do unto him as he had
thought to have done unto his brother, so
shalt thou put the evil away from among
you.
Deuteronomy 19, 16-19 Consider the testimony for
which the faithful and honorable martyr James Rennick
suffered and died, and note the similarity between
his dying testimony and our terms of communion,
and ask yourself, has Mr. Bacon faithfully represented
Rennick's position?
Dear friends, I die a Presbyterian Protestant.
I own the word of God as the
rule of faith and manners.
I own the confession of faith, larger and
shorter catechisms, sum of saving knowledge, directory for
public and family worship, covenants, national and solemn
league, acts of general assemblies, and all the
faithful contendings that have been for the covenanted
reformation.
I leave my testimony approving the preaching in
the field and defending the same by arms.
I adjourn my testimony against potpourri, prelacy, Erastianism,
against all profanity and everything contrary to sound
doctrine and the power of godliness, particularly against
all usurpation and encroachments made upon Christ's right,
the Prince of the kings of this earth,
who alone must bear the glory of ruling
his own kingdom, the Church, and in particular
against the absolute power affected by his usurper
that belongs to no mortal but is the
incommunicable prerogative of Jehovah and against his toleration
flowing from his mouth.
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write
unto you of the common salvation, it was
needful for me to write unto you and
exhort you that you should earnestly contend for
the faith which was once delivered unto the
saints.
Jude, verse 3 What are terms of communion?
The Bible is my creed, shouts the untutored
professor, but such a principle as following the
law False.
The Bible is no man's creed.
It is the very truth itself.
Since nearly every man who exhibits his intention
to join the Church of Christ will make
a claim to believe the Bible, we must
expect that something more than the expressed words
of Scripture are necessary to determine with whom
we agree.
Terms of communion are terms of agreement in
doctrine, principle, and practice, that is, doctrine, worship,
discipline, and government.
They are statements and explanations of the doctrine
and principles necessary for harmonious association.
They are not a substitute for Scripture, but
rather a summary explanation of what we understand
Scripture to mean.
By this means, we testify as to why
we have a separate existence from other churches
within the nation.
If our terms of communion were the same
as those of any other known church in
our nation, we would be duty-bound to
immediately seek to unite into one body.
It is by means of explicitly stated terms
of communion that we may glorify God and
honestly try to obey His commandment to endeavor
to keep the unity of the Spirit in
the bond of peace, Ephesians 4.3. Now
I beseech you, brethren, by the name of
our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak
the same thing and that there be no
divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly
joined together in the same mind and in
the same judgment, 1 Corinthians 1.10. Using
terms of communion to secure harmony and cooperation
within the membership of the Church of Christ
is an inescapable concept.
Whether implicitly or explicitly, every church has terms
that extend beyond the expressed proclamations of the
Word of God.
Those who are deluded into thinking that no
further explanation of Scripture is necessary to establish
and maintain harmony in the Church will be
found among those groups who allow persons of
diametrically opposed faith and practice to break down
all distinction between truth and error.
Such pretense is satisfied with a mere worshipping
together and sitting within the same building, whether
or not union of sentiment exists to any
significant degree.
The aim of such pretended union is finding
a way to teach those with few fixed
beliefs that true unity consists in learning how
to agree to disagree.
The way of peace they know not, and
there is no judgment in their goings.
They have made them crooked paths.
Whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.
Isaiah 59.8 The Reformed Presbytery comments, The
doctrine of modern forbearance among persons of opposite
belief, inducing them to form a compromise in
which they mutually agree to differ, and never
more to mention discording tenets, leads, in its
native tendency, to the suppression of the truth
and the lasting concealment of so many articles
of faith as the jarring sentiments may happen
to hinge upon.
And what is the amount of this but
to banish forever from the faith of the
church a great number of precious truths contained
in the word of God and designed by
Him for the spiritual comfort and edification of
the people?
And all this to obtain a Catholic union
amongst professing Christians at the expense of losing
sacred truth?
An agreement to divide in matter of faith
and practice sounds ill with the injunction to
be perfectly joined together in the same mind.
And that's from the Reformed Presbytery and Defense
of the Terms of Communion, page 152.
On the other hand, those who understand that
an honest and explicit expression of the meaning
of God's word, both stated and applied, is
a necessary mean to accomplishing the end of
promoting God's glory through unity of doctrine and
uniformity of practice, will be found insisting that
distinct and clear testimony be asserted prior to
any membership or association.
And they continued steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine
and fellowship and in breaking of bread and
in prayers, Acts 2.42. That we henceforth
be no more children tossed to and fro
and carried about with every wind of doctrine
by the slight of men and cunning craftiness
whereby they lie and wait to deceive, Ephesians
4.14. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained,
let us walk by the same rule, let
us mind the same thing, Philippians 3.16.
Our testimony is framed in statements of doctrine,
argument, and application of principle to the facts
of history.
Doctrinal statements such as creeds and confessions exhibit
and confirm our agreement in doctrine, worship, discipline,
and government.
John Anderson explains, Quote, It is vain to
say that the confession of our particular church
is a human thing, for, candidly interpreted, it
may be found to contain nothing but the
undoubted truth of God's word.
It is either possible for men to express
these truths in their own words, or it
is not.
If it is not possible, then his words
cannot be understood, and all attempts to state,
explain, illustrate, or apply them, as in public
preaching or writing, are vain, a supposition grossly
absurd.
But if it be possible for men to
express the truths of Scripture in their own
words, then the doctrines or instructions contained in
the confession may be no other than the
truths of God's word, and if they are
actually no other, then a church may warrantably
require of her members, and of such as
desire admission to her communion, a public assent
to her whole confession, nor can that assent
be refused without impiety.
No church has a right to require her
members to receive any of the doctrines or
commandments of men, but her Divine Head authorizes
her to exact of her members an adherence
to all His truths and institutions.
In this case, He is saying, He that
receiveth you receiveth me, and he that despiseth
you despiseth me.
And that's from Anderson's Alexander and Rufus, page
36.
David Steele comments, quote, Even our doctrinal standards
we receive from our fathers through history alone.
Now I desire the reader to see with
his own mental eye that our faith in
the genuineness of these doctrinal standards rests solely
on human testimony.
That is, we believe on the evidence of
the generations who have lived before us that
our confessions, covenants, and so forth are true
copies of those documents.
But our belief, so far, is not saving
faith, the faith of God's elect.
Having these documents handed down to us through
history alone, then we compare them with the
Bible.
Can we perceive their agreement or disagreement without
reasoning?
No, surely.
Well, now, if two persons at first sight
take different views of any doctrine, will they
not at once enter into discussion and their
future agreement result from honest argument?
Yet neither their agreement in believing the symbols
of their profession to be true copies, no,
nor even their belief that a certain doctrine
is scriptural, constitutes the faith of God's elect.
But it does constitute that kind of faith
or agreement by which they can walk together.
He's referring to Amos 3.3. I hope
the reader can now perceive that the faith
of God's elect is not the condition of
fellowship in the visible church, and that the
visible is distinct from the invisible church.
There are few delusions more prevalent and popular
than the old error revived that assurance of
grace and salvation is essential to saving faith,
and that it is or ought to be
one of the terms or in fact the
only condition of fellowship in the visible church.
The first judicial testimony sanctioned by the Reformed
Presbyterian Church in 1761 at Ploughland Head, Scotland
is the only one that has the formal
nature and possesses the essential parts of such
a document.
These parts are three, history to supply facts,
arguments to test the character of the facts,
and doctrinal statement as the rule of trial.
Is it not the function of a witness
to state facts?
Yes, certainly.
And what is history but a statement of
facts?
These may be true or false.
The character and competence of the witness is
also to be considered.
The function of the judge is to state
and apply the law, and in the application
of the law he is assisted by others
called jurors or associates.
Arguments are addressed by advocates to judge and
jury.
Now, I hope the reader will see that
the greatest, the most important cause in the
universe, the conflict between truth and error, between
righteousness and unrighteousness, between Christ and Belial, which
has been on trial since the time of
Cain and Abel, cannot be conducted without history,
argument, and doctrinal declaration.
All testimony bearing which lacks any of these
three cardinal and essential elements is not merely
defective, but decidedly pretentious and unfaithful.
And that's from Steele's Reminiscences, pages 202 to
205.
Furthermore, Pastor Steele adds, quote, History is a
record of past events, and to deserve the
name of history the events recorded must be
authentic, for cunningly devised fables are not history.
Authentic history is of the essential nature of
testimony.
A witness on the stand gives a statement
of facts, evidence, testimony.
So true is it that not only minor
matters of litigation but even death and life
are in the power of the tongue, Proverbs
18, 21.
A very large portion of the Bible is
historical.
The first words in it announce one of
the most important of historical facts.
In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.
The great importance of this statement appears from
the speculations of heathen philosophers and self-styled
scientists in our own age.
For this they willingly are ignorant of, that
by the word of God the heavens were
of old, and the earth standing out of
the water and in the water, 2 Peter
3, 5.
Also, many of the psalms are historical, epitomizing
the previous facts recorded in the Old Testament
that these might be more indelibly impressed upon
the mind and heart of God's people, and
that they might not forget his works, for
then they forget God their Savior, Psalms 16,
13 and 21.
Moreover, the origin and progress of the visible
church in the world under different dispensations of
mercy is matter of historical record.
She is on earth the only immortal corporation,
and since the canon of inspired scripture closed,
she has had no one infallible historian.
Many, indeed, have undertaken to set forth in
order a declaration of those things which are
most surely believed among the disciples of Christ,
but their witness agreed not together, Luke 1
.1, Mark 14.56. Those who take as
guides in searching the history of the church,
Mosheim, Milner or many others, are following false
guides whose delineations portray the features of the
scarlet lady rather than the lamb's wife.
In this historical fact, the almost universal misrepresentations
of the spouse of Christ, the intelligent reader
may discover the reason for a select class
who the Lord Jesus expressly distinguishes from all
others as his witnesses, Revelation 11.3, and
the necessity for their testimony.
These and these only are children that will
not lie, Isaiah 63.8, and in their
mouth is found no guile, Revelation 14.5,
hence the necessity of historical testimony.
Again, history interprets prophecy, which is an ever
-increasing evidence that the Holy Scriptures are from
God.
How could it be known when the canon
was settled but mainly by history?
Or how can Antichrist be identified or the
witnesses themselves be identified but by history?
For the doctrines, the worship, government and discipline
of the church have all been misrepresented, counterfeited
and even the church herself, Revelation 17.18.
Thus it is apparent that the only way
by which the witnesses can identify the true
church is by comparing doctrine and order with
the alone infallible rule, the Bible.
And this comparing involves reasoning, argument.
History and argument do, therefore, constitute the church's
testimony and supply her terms of communion by
which she is distinguished from the flocks of
the companions.
Tell me, O thou whom my soul loveth,
where thou feedest, where thou makest thy flock
to rest at noon?
For why should I be as one that
turneth aside by the flocks of thy companions?
Song of Solomon 1.7. And I remind
the listener that I'm still quoting Steele.
Reader, where did you get all the subordinate
standards of your published faith, your confession, catechisms
and so forth?
You will probably say from Westminster, England and
from Scotland.
But how do you know?
For about 46 years ago, had you been
a member in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, this
question might have puzzled you.
About that time we received new light on
that matter when the following startling statements were
first published by professing Covenanters.
Quote, Even the fact of the existence of
the Westminster Assembly has been for several generations
a matter merely of human history.
Such a faith, that is, in the existence
of the Westminster Assembly, could not be the
faith of God's elect.
Again, that such covenants were ever entered into
has no other evidence than mere historical record
and consequently ought not to be made an
article of the believer's faith, a term of
communion.
We have often said, and we now repeat,
that there are two kinds of faith by
which society is held together.
Faith and belief are convertible terms.
The kind of testimony, in any case, determines
the kind of faith.
Divine faith is founded and rests on divine
testimony alone.
Whereas, human faith needs as a foundation only
human testimony.
All human relations in this world are grounded
on human evidence, testimony.
Does a husband identify his wife or the
wife or husband by divine testimony?
Can the parents know their child or the
child the parents by the Bible?
We insist upon this point, giving precept upon
precept, simple though it be, because we know
with absolute certainty that even learned divines, including
many theological professors, doctors of divinity even, of
the covenanting name, have forsaken the covenant cause
of Christ through their sinful and shameful ignorance
of this matter.
Our Reformed ancestors thoroughly understood this point before
there was ever a DD known among them.
Why did they attach the word infallible to
the first term of communion?
Because it, and it alone, demands divine faith,
all the rest requiring human faith only, because
they are fallible, subordinate to the first term.
Did our truly learned and godly progenitors stultify
themselves by contradicting their own confession?
All synods or councils since the Apostles' times,
whether general or particular, may err, and many
have erred.
Therefore they are not to be made the
rule of faith or practice, but to be
used as a help in both.
Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 31, Section 4
To make this topic in theology and faithful
testimony bearing so plain that he may run
that readeth it, and to render those who
prefer to continue willingly ignorant inexcusable, we give
an illustration adapted, we hope, to the capacity
of even babes in Christ.
Q.
Do you believe there is such a place
as Scotland?
A.
I think I do, for it is laid
down on the school atlas, and whoever made
the atlas must have believed in its existence.
Q.
Do you find Scotland named in the Bible?
A.
No.
Q.
Do you believe that Richard Cameron, Donald Cargill,
James Rennick, and many others associated with them
lived in Scotland in the latter half of
the seventeenth century?
A.
I do, for I have both heard and
read about those ministers.
Q.
But you do not read of them in
the Bible, do you?
A.
No.
Q.
Well, have you read of the principles they
held and how they applied their principles?
A.
Yes, I know the principles they propagated and
also the way they applied them.
Q.
Now, were they malefactors as most of their
countrymen charged, or were they indeed martyrs of
Jesus Christ?
A.
I believe they were martyrs.
Q.
So you believe in human testimony that there
is such a place on the earth as
Scotland, that Richard Cameron and so forth once
lived in Scotland, that they taught certain doctrines
and applied them, and for such teaching and
practice they suffered a violent death, martyrdom, and
yet you find nothing of this in the
Bible.
Human records alone supply these facts from which,
comparing them with the Word of God, you
argue and conclude with certainty that those people
were witnesses for Christ.
Now, if you reject the history of their
principles, practice, and sufferings, how can you honestly
or rationally claim identity with them?
You thereby sever the only link of connection.
You may be pious, a Christian, but not
a covenanted Presbyterian, and if your supreme end
is your own salvation, you have mistaken the
end of your being, Revelation 4.11, and
come short of that type of patriotism which
the example of the martyr supplies.
Hence, 1.
The British Covenants are manifestly historical documents.
2.
The peculiarity of the National Covenant that it
was framed, sworn, and often renewed in Scotland
does not destroy its moral character or affect
the permanency of its obligation, and the same
is true of the Solemn Legion Covenant.
3.
The very names of these covenants, yes, and
the principles incorporated in them which have given
Christian liberty and liberty of conscience to many
millions, come to us through the medium of
history alone.
4.
All who have adhered to these covenants have
been known for centuries by historic names and
can be identified in no other way as
Cameroonians, Cargolites, society people, mountain men, covenanters, and
so forth, and by near and necessary consequence,
if thou know not, O thou fairest among
women, go thy way forth by the footsteps
of the flock and feed thy kids besides
the shepherd's tents.
Song of Solomon 1.8. 5.
All who reject history from their conditions of
fellowship and yet claim kindred with the Reformed
Covenanted Church are deceiving and being deceived.
In this matter they are false witnesses, but
we want that through ignorance that they do
it.
And that's from the Original Covenanter Volume 2,
Number 12, pages 353-357.
History alone supplies the facts, and argument ascertains
the validity of these historical facts by applying
doctrinal principles and taking both to the law
of God to pass judgment upon them, that
is, the them being Acts of General Assembly
and Judicial Testimony.
By agreeing that these historical judgments are consistent
and agreeable with God's Holy Word, we bear
witness of the faithful contendings of our forefathers
and exhibit the uniformity of doctrine and practice
intended by the covenant of God.
This agreement in doctrine and practice, both presently
and historically, forms our mutual bond of fellowship
and communion and is the means by which
we as brethren voluntarily and honestly resolve to
walk together in peace and sit together in
communion.
Can two walk together except they be agreed?
Amos 3.3 Pastor Steele continues, quote, Among
consistent Reformed Presbyterians, unity in the faith and
uniformity in its application have ever been the
terms of their fellowship, and this unity and
uniformity are mutually pledged not only as required
by the word of God, but as the
subordinate standards of both their faith and practice
were received by the Church of Scotland.
Of course, the avowed faith, that is, the
principles of our covenant fathers and their Christian
practice, are known to us only by evidence
of uninspired history, and while we view neither
their system of faith nor their known practice
as infallible, we nevertheless own their principle and
engage to follow their footsteps, and both, if
need be, with all the solemnity of the
oath of God.
All this is implied and carried out in
covenant renovation.
And again, that's from Apostasy in the RPC
and A.
Steele's Correspondences with James M.
Wilson.
Francis Turretin adds, quote, As we have said
before, this is the natural right of all
well-regulated societies, that they can separate from
their own flock unfit and injurious men and
the impurities, disgraces, and cancers of their assembly.
For the same power by which they have
the right of gathering themselves together gives to
them the authority to make laws and constitutions
for the preservation of the body and for
the expulsions of those who will not obey
those laws and who, by their rebellion, could
taint or corrupt the whole body.
And it is a necessity of such kind
that without it no society can long exist.
Now, if this is granted to other societies,
far more ought it to belong to the
Church, which is both holier and better regulated.
Nor can they with whom we now argue
deny this who acknowledge the magistrate not being
a believer or neglecting his duty in restraining
and punishing the wicked, that each assembly by
associated discipline and mutual covenant can assume for
itself a certain power of the magistrate, reduce
the disorderly to order, drive the impious and
unbelievers from itself, and cause them to keep
by themselves, and provide for other things conducing
to its own conservation.
Now, it makes little difference whether this is
called a right of nature or authority flowing
from Christ, since the right of nature is
derived from no other source than God Himself.
Nay, since the Church is a sacred and
religious society instituted by Christ, no one can
deny that she is received from Christ Himself
whatever power she has, as all other things.
For the same one who wished to establish
her in the world furnished her also with
all things which are necessary for her conservation.
That's from Turretin's Institutes of Olympic Theology Volume
3, page 296.
Pastor Steele explains the broad purpose and progressive
nature of terms of communion.
Quote, As the primary object of terms of
communion in the Church is to exhibit the
law and covenant of God and then agreement
of persons in their apprehension of these, together
with their joint and declared resolution to walk
accordingly, it would appear that they are a
rational expedient to reach the proposed end.
Those who oppose creeds and so forth are
apt to forget that the acknowledgement of the
Holy Scriptures does not itself secure union of
sentiment and concert in action.
Besides, the witnesses of Christ in preserving the
integrity of their testimony and their own moral
identity are necessitated to know and expose the
errors and ungodliness which prevail under the name
of religion.
Hence they are obliged so to direct their
testimony as to meet the ever-shifting forms
and phases of error and immorality.
And as their testimony thus progresses towards its
consummation, there is a correspondent bearing given to
her terms of communion.
In case of defection she must ascertain from
history the footsteps of the flock whereto she
attained in time past that she may obey
the divine direction, walk by the same rule,
and mind the same thing.
And that's from Steele's The Two Witnesses, Appendix
Note C.
Let us therefore as many as be perfect
be thus minded, and if in anything ye
be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this
unto you.
Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us
walk by the same rule, let us mind
the same thing.
Philippians 3, 15 and 16.
The Reformed Presbytery comments, quote, This Presbytery believes
firmly that the testimony of Christ's Witnesses is
necessarily progressive, and that it will assuredly advance
in the face of all opposition until it
be finished.
There is no such anomalous document recognized among
the faithful Witnesses as a standing testimony.
All such measures of compromise they must repudiate.
And that's from The Minutes of the Reformed
Presbytery, North Union, September 30, 1875, which are
found in The Reformation Advocate, page 233.
To summarize, what are terms of communion?
1.
Terms of communion pertain to the external communion
of the visible church and not to the
internal communion of the invisible church.
2.
Terms of communion are intended to exhibit the
law and covenant of God so that members
of Christ's visible body can determine whether or
not they walk together in unity and uniformity.
They are an aid to promoting, preserving, and
maintaining the peace and purity of the church
and are based solely upon the infallible Word
of God.
3.
Terms of communion are composed of abstract doctrinal
statements such as creeds and confessions, forms and
directories.
Though agreeable to God's Word, these standards are
all deduced from the Word of God and
thus understood to be historical and fallible.
4.
Terms of communion also include intrinsically and perpetually
binding covenants.
Faith without works is dead, as is abstract
doctrine without covenant and obligation.
Covenants are deduced from God's Word and thus
are subordinate and fallible.
5.
Terms of communion include facts of history judged
by the Word of God according to the
argument of faithful witnesses and judicatories.
Historical acts of general assemblies, governments, and notable
individuals are identified and judged according to the
principles of God's Word.
Faithful contendings are separated from unfaithful contendings and
martyrs are remembered and honored for their faithful
works created in Christ Jesus from the foundation
of the world.
These acts of general assembly, judging history according
to Scripture, are all fallible and subordinate to
the Word of God.
6.
All of these terms are progressive and may
be restated by qualified assemblies to meet the
ever-shifting forms and phases of error and
immorality.
Consequently, a standing testimony is not sufficient due
to the fact that it does not testify
against the current sins and errors of the
times.
Now, having laid this foundation, let's examine Mr.
Bacon's principles according to the words of his
own mouth.
An examination of Mr. Bacon's Popish principles.
Mr. Bacon's misrepresentations stem from something far more
than overwrought emotion, shoddy scholarship, and open lies.
False doctrine begets bad manners.
It is he who has adopted the Popish
position of infallibility, and I will now proceed
to prove it out of his own mouth.
To do this, we must first distinguish between
the bond of communion in the invisible church,
that is, saving faith, and the bond of
communion in the visible church, that is, doctrine,
argument, and history.
These are not the same thing, and like
Rome, Mr. Bacon ignorantly confounds the two.
I will begin by demonstrating how 140 years
ago Mr. James M.
Wilson, herein called the Covenanter, employed the same
sinful tactics as Mr. Bacon.
Pastor Steele says, quote, The Covenanter made free
to charge to us the damnable heresy of
infallibility avowed by the Romish church.
Take the charge in some of his select
phraseology, a great error, this writer's great error,
a strange delusion, human history on a par
with Bible truth, the worst form of the
Popish doctrine, the radical and most dangerous error,
fearful error, putting human compositions on a par
with the Bible.
These are but some of the charitable and
complimentary terms and phrases by which the Covenanter,
so called, cast dust in the eyes of
the credulous and eluded the point in argument
which he could not meet.
And it is to be deplored that a
spirit of deep sleep has closed the eyes
of many professing witnesses for a covenanted testimony.
It is certain that if Scripture light and
sound reasoning do not prevail to awaken sinners
in Zion, judgments must follow.
Then, woe to blind seers and to those
who say to the seers, see not.
That's from The Two Witnesses, page 39.
To these outlandish charges, Pastor Steele replies, quote,
We are constrained, however, to roll off the
odium attached to a claim of infallibility and
show the reader to whom this fearful error
belongs, praying that he who originated it may
be brought to renounce the error and repent
of former rashness.
We should reflect that a real disciple may
for a time resist the truth, fundamental truth,
in the plan of redemption, while his heart
is biased by a clouded intellect, Matthew 16,
21 through 23.
Such reflection would contribute to the right direction
of our charity.
But to our present purpose, one, distinguish between
the ground of saving faith and terms of
communion in the visible church.
These are not identical.
Rome's error results from confounding these.
Her reasoning, if it may be called reasoning,
is this.
The church receives none to communion but believers,
all beyond her pale or unbelievers, heretics.
There is no salvation but in her communion.
Therefore, saving faith or the grounds of saving
faith should alone constitute the bond of fellowship
in the church.
In the time of the First Reformation, both
in Europe and England, enthusiasts would receive none
but true believers.
Luther himself was troubled, perplexed for about three
years in dealing with this question after he
had obtained clear views of the grounds of
saving faith.
The covenanter is entangled in the same difficulty.
That's from the two witnesses, pages 39 and
40.
But it will be asked, does not saving
faith rest on divine testimony?
Of course it does.
But while saving faith is the single term
of communion for the invisible church, where does
the Scripture teach that saving faith is a
term, and especially the only term of communion
in the visible church of Christ?
Pastor Steele continues, 2.
Distinguish between the visible church and the church
invisible.
Saving faith, or the ground of saving faith,
is the bond of communion in the invisible
church.
Not so in the visible church, otherwise hypocrites
could not be there.
The doctrines arguments, and history of the visible
church are all her own deductions from Scripture.
None of these has the attribute of infallibility
because the church is not infallible.
An effect cannot be greater than its cause.
The stream rise higher than its source.
Again, from the two witnesses, page 40.
Mr. Bacon says, 2.
The difference between the Puritan Reformed Church of
Edmonton and the RPC is not over creedal
subscription.
We subscribe fully and without reservation to the
Westminster Confession of Faith and a larger and
shorter catechisms.
In fact, our officers are required to declare
that we, quote, do sincerely own and believe
the whole doctrine contained in the Confession of
Faith approved by formal general assemblies of this
church to be the truths of God, and
I do own the same as the Confession
of my faith, close quote.
This formula, in full, is to be subscribed
by probationers before receiving license, and by all
ministers, elders, and deacons at the time of
their admission.
There should be no question at all about
the strictness with which we hold the Confession.
Any who have known either First Presbyterian Church
of Rowlett or the RPC should have no
question in that regard.
Defense departed.
Here, Mr. Bacon declares insistently how strictly he
requires the officers of his church to swear
to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the
larger and shorter catechisms.
By this, he undeniably asserts that he is
willing to swear to the truth of fallible
doctrine.
Next, he says, quote, but one must remember
that the Stelites invest a similar meaning in
the term historical testimony that the Romanist does
with his inspired tradition of the fathers.
That's from Defense Departed.
Here, Mr. Bacon further argues, however, that we
must never swear to historical testimony because we
would place it in the same category of
infallibility as the Papists do with their tradition.
Mr. Bacon's position is this.
We may swear to the confessions and catechisms
truth of doctrine, but we may not swear
to historical testimony.
Why?
David Steele fittingly provides the devastating response.
Quote, but if we cannot swear to the
truth of history, what is the reason?
We assume that the only reason having the
shadow of plausibility is this.
We cannot be sure that the history is
infallibly true.
Well, then, if we can swear to the
truth of doctrine, the reason must be because
we are sure of its infallibility.
We shall not call this the worst form
of Popish error, preferring that the reader pronounce
upon it according to his own judgment.
That's from the Covenanter, pages 73 and 74,
the Correspondences with Wilson.
Hence, the Popish error of Mr. Bacon and
all who follow in his footsteps is exposed.
He, like James M.
Wilson, admits that he will swear to uphold
fallible, humanly composed confessions, but he won't swear
to uphold fallible, humanly composed historical testimony.
While he maintains that swearing to uphold historical
testimony is Popish, we wonder why he won't
say the same for fallible, humanly composed confessions.
Are confessions and historical testimony not equally fallible?
Are they not both humanly composed?
Are they not the doctrinal form of historical
testimony?
The only rational explanation for Mr. Bacon's position
is this, that he really believes that his
confession of faith and its humanly deduced doctrine
are infallible.
Thus, it is he who implicitly promotes the
infallibility of human compositions.
It is he who invests a similar meaning
to his confession of faith that the Romanist
does with his inspired tradition of the Fathers.
He has condemned himself out of the words
of his own mouth.
Thou art snared with the words of thy
mouth, Thou art taken with the words of
thy mouth, Proverbs 6, 2.
Pastor Steele had the same contention with James
M.
Wilson 140 years ago, and the argument concluded
with the same result.
Quote, Now we have tested the Covenanter's orthodoxy
here on this very point, Popish infallibility.
We have supposed that the reason why he
can swear to the truth of doctrine is
because he is sure of its infallibility.
That was a quote from Covenanter, Volume 12,
pages 73 to 74.
Now, let the reader mark the reply.
Quote, Certainly infallible because Bible truth, close quote.
But how shall it be ascertained that the
deductions are Bible truth, infallible?
Do we receive this infallibility by tradition from
our fathers of Scotland or Westminster?
No, indignantly we say no.
In the very body of the doctrinal standards
which they framed, they tell us, Quote, All
synods and councils since the apostles' times may
err, and many have erred, therefore they are
not to be made the rule of faith
or practice, etc.
Surely the assembly at Westminster were not so
impious or stupid as to claim an infallibility
which they so explicitly denied to all uninspired
predecessors.
The Covenanter, Quote, Wonders we do not see
that if we show we have a history
with our testimony it must be infallible, close
quote.
Besides separating here between history and testimony, we
wonder at his persistence in asserting, by plain
implication, the infallibility of a human testimony.
We deny before the world the infallibility of
our own testimony, the Covenanter's testimony, every other
uninspired testimony, and moreover humbly suggest to the
Covenanter the danger of encroaching upon the divine
prerogatives and charging such impiety upon his neighbors.
It is amazing amidst perpetual displays of supercilious
contempt, dogmatic assertion and so forth, that such
palpable evidence occurs in almost every paragraph that
the Covenanter has yet much to learn of
the nature, substance, and arrangement of the terms
of communion and the testimony of the Reformed
Covenanted Church.
And that's from the Two Witnesses, page 40.
Evidently, Mr. Bacon also has much to learn
about the nature, substance, and arrangement of the
terms of communion as well as the proper
use of his tongue.
Cease, my son, to hear the instruction that
causeth to err from the words of knowledge.
Proverbs 19.27 This concludes Tape 1 of
the Protestant Antidote to Modern Schismatical Disunity, being
Chapter 4 of Greg Barrow's book The Covenanted
Reformation Defended Against Contemporary Schismatics.
Please note that this entire book is free
on Stillwaters Revival Books website www.swrb.com
It is also available in hardcover from Stillwaters
along with a treasure trove of the finest
Protestant, Reformed, and Puritan literature available anywhere in
the world today.
Stillwaters can be reached at 780-450-3730
or by e-mail at swrb at swrb
.com Note also that these tapes are not
copyrighted and we therefore encourage you to copy
and distribute them to any and all you
believe would be benefited.