Kenneth Stewart's plea for unity

[Hugues Pierre]

Hold on here. The Translators to the reader letter in the original KJV text says that even the meanest translation of the word of God is STILL the word of God. I mean for crying out loud, the Septuagint was considered the word of God by the apostles, notwithstanding its defects in adding and omitting material that is not in the original Hebrew AND that it was translated by Egyptian scholars! This is nothing to split over. All bible versions do what they are supposed to do in convicting and converting sinners and edifying the saints. Are some better than others? absolutely, but all are equally the word of God.

Hello Mike,

The FCC understands her constitution as requiring adhesion to the Received Text (WCF 1.8) and the use of the best translation available (i.e Directory for the Public Worship). Furthermore, as many Ministers are spiritual heirs of the old Constitutionalist Party, they argue that the Constitution of the Free Church is inviolable. So, no union can be achieved in renouncing Free Church doctrines and principles.

 

[Jake]

if Dutch churches, who have less historical baggage than Scottish churches, are unable to unite… then humanly speaking I can’t see Scottish churches uniting anytime soon

To be fair, the RPCoS is a very small denomination. Most of the denomination joined the FCoS in 1876 and there are only 5 churches left. And there have still been a handful of ministers going into other denominations. Wasn't Craig Scott RPCoS before going RPCNA and recently FCoS(C)?

Hello Mike,

The FCC understands her constitution as requiring adhesion to the Received Text (WCF 1.8) and the use of the best translation available (i.e Directory for the Public Worship). Furthermore, as many Ministers are spiritual heirs of the old Constitutionalist Party, they argue that the Constitution of the Free Church is inviolable. So, no union can be achieved in renouncing Free Church doctrines and principles.

Where is this written down? I have had trouble ever finding this. I can only find evidence of a variety of view on the interpretation of WCF 1.8 starting at and since the Disruption, but it seems that perhaps this has been the implied understanding since the 2000 re-organization.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Alexander Shields made an important observation that we would do well to keep in mind during these discussions.



How did Christ receive us? Never until we were perfectly informed and reformed? Did he never receive us till we confessed all our particular sins, and such as we did ignorantly? No; then we had never been received, except he had pleased to take us with many Faults and much Ignorance.

Alexander Shields, An Enquiry into Church-Communion. Or, A Treatise against Separation from the Revolution-Settlement of this National Church, as it was settled Anno 1689 and 1690 (Edinburgh: William Gray, 1747), p. 7.

Okay, this observation is of limited usefulness to this debate. It will not solve the issue regarding the TR, for instance. It does, however, challenge those who assert that the RPs need to repent of 1) never having joined the established church at the Revolution Settlement; 2) never having joined the Free Church at the Disruption; 3) not having joined with the Free Church (Continuing) in 2000. Seriously, do we expect people to have to do twenty PhDs in church history before they decide where to go to church?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Divisions, particularly ours (Presbyterianism's) which are centuries old now, pose a perplexing difficulty in that it is a duty to cure them, unless you think denominations are not a "bug" but a "feature" (which I guess many do). “If union be the great step to edification as dissension and strife are the door that lets in distraction, then division and separation cannot be the cure, but union is the first and great step of edification. Therefore separation cannot be the cure. Separation has ever been the greatest enemy of edification and reformation.” James Durham, “A Sermon on Ephesians 4:11–12,” Collected Sermons of James Durham: Sixty-one Sermons (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, August 2017), p. 933. See especially this whole sermon (a prelude to his later book Concerning Scandals and part four Concerning Scandalous Divisions, where he treats of the absolute necessity of a divided church to unite under general grounds leading to unity (right after the paragraph about the cure of division most difficult!).

 

[MChase]

Divisions, particularly ours (Presbyterianism's) which are centuries old now, pose a perplexing difficulty in that it is a duty to cure them, unless you think denominations are not a "bug" but a "feature" (which I guess many do). “If union be the great step to edification as dissension and strife are the door that lets in distraction, then division and separation cannot be the cure, but union is the first and great step of edification. Therefore separation cannot be the cure. Separation has ever been the greatest enemy of edification and reformation.” James Durham, “A Sermon on Ephesians 4:11–12,” Collected Sermons of James Durham: Sixty-one Sermons (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, August 2017), p. 933. See especially this whole sermon (a prelude to his later book Concerning Scandals and part four Concerning Scandalous Divisions, where he treats of the absolute necessity of a divided church to unite under general grounds leading to unity (right after the paragraph about the cure of division most difficult!).

In American Presbyterianism it seems like many seem to think the splits are a useful feature, but I haven’t found that mindset amongst those of us who hold to the establishment principle and believe in the biblical warrant for a united state church. However, given that it is those of us with that mindset that find ourselves in the split-P world that currently exists, it makes it all the more lamentable that we hold great truths on paper without being able to work it out in practice.

I believe it was Durham that mentioned that if something wasn’t worth dividing over, it’s not worth staying divided over; that is convicting and vital advice for those of us in the confessional westminsterian world to heed.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

By the way, if you don't mind, do you still plan to provide the Vermigli quote?

Sorry, I missed this one, Jake. I dug out the volume after I sent the original message, but have yet to get a chance to look through it to find the relevant extract(s). I will try to get to it soon and tag you in the relevant thread(s).

 

[Northern Crofter]

To bring this thread full circle, this is the article Rev. Stewart wrote for the RPoS website summarizing the reasons behind the formation of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland and its not joining the Settlement CoS: https://www.rpcscotland.org/history...ch-of-scotland-and-the-revolution-settlement/ I don't care for the exclamatory editorial asides in the article but found it a good detailed summary for those who want to take a deeper look into the political history and church history of the RPCoS/FCoS/FCoS(C) issues in this thread.

I think, in explaining why the RPs did not join the Settlement CoS, it raises the important question that, if the Revolution Settlement was so glorious for the CoS, why the subsequent Secessions of 1733 and 1761, as well as the Disruption of 1843? (EDIT: see chart in next post)

A few highlights I found relative to the OP:

"...it has become fairly common, in recent years, to assert that the refusal of many covenanters to enter the renewed Church of Scotland in 1690 had to do with the covenants and with the covenants alone. This, as we shall see, was decidedly not the case."

"...the children of the 18th century Secessions and the 19th century Disruption should focus less on organic descent and focus more on spiritual affinity. Accordingly, they should cease to claim continuity with the church of the Revolution Settlement, simply on the ground of descent, and recognise spiritual affinity with those who rejected the Revolution Settlement – because that is who they are in spirit."

 

[Northern Crofter]

In case some folks get lost:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Churches_of_Scotland_timeline.svg

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Where is this written down? I have had trouble ever finding this. I can only find evidence of a variety of view on the interpretation of WCF 1.8 starting at and since the Disruption, but it seems that perhaps this has been the implied understanding since the 2000 re-organization.

Hello Jake,

Both are true: the TR position is objectively the teaching of WCF 1.8 and the FCC understanding of this article.

 

[Logan]

the TR position is objectively the teaching of WCF 1.8

No, it's really not.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

In relation to the TR, would that issue preclude the FCC from reuniting with the Free Church - even if the issues that caused that split were resolved? If the answer is "no", why should it preclude them from uniting with the RPCS?

 

[Djmaclean]

It is good to have venues like this to dialogue. There are three issues here for me which are distinct but related.

The first is how all this relates to the classic Scottish position (which Reformed Covenanter alludes to) of James Durham: what does not justify initial separation cannot justify subsequent failure to unite. I am not aware of any church division caused by differing views on the text of scripture in the history of the Free Church of Scotland. In the post-1900 Free Church advocacy of the critical text and the use of the NIV was widespread before the division of 2000 which created the FCC. And yet no one separated because of that. So, per Durham, given it did not create division in the past, should it block union now? A case would need to be made that the current divided state is consistent with the old Scottish doctrine of church unity.

The second issue is - has the Free Church of Scotland, since her separate existence in 1843, adopted a TR only interpretation of the Confession? I don’t see that she has. As conservative a figure like William Cunningham, for example, states: “There are some small portions of the Bible in regard to which it is doubtful, and the doubt cannot be altogether removed, whether or not they ought to stand as part of the sacred text: and there are passages where it is doubtful, and the doubt cannot be fully and certainly resolved, whether one word or phrase or a different one proceeded from the original authors. This is certain, and in regard to the Greek New Testament has been always known and conceded.” So it would have to be demonstrated that the Free Church of Scotland’s founding fathers and her General Assemblies historically interpreted its constitution as TR only. If such a case has been made I’d be interested to read it.

The third issue is how to deal with our history. That which was a blessing in the past can become a hindrance in the present - just think of the bronze serpent. It seems like arguments over the distant past have become a hindrance to present unity, which seems wrong on a number of levels.

It has struck me often that after unfolding the riches of God’s sovereign saving grace in Christ Jesus, Paul’s first application in Ephesians is the call to “endeavour to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” And Paul follows this with multiple doctrinal reasons why this must be our attitude as believers. My hope is that we would return to the old doctrine of the church outlined by James Durham (and many others), for in doing that church unions would surely follow.

PS None of this is to advocate for or against the TR… simply about what views should or shouldn’t prevent union.

Donald John MacLean
Elder, Cambridge, UK

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I have shared the below link to William Cunningham's view of the TR before and I do so again to challenge the "apostolic succession" notion that some FCC partisans appear to display. If there is an "apostolic succession" or unbroken constitutional continuity between the FCC and the Disruption Church of 1843, then how do you address the elephant in the room that the Disruption Worthies were not TR-purists?

William Cunningham: Holding the centre-ground on the Textus Receptus

In the midst of William Cunningham’s lectures discussing the providential preservation of scripture and textual criticism, he articulated his views concerning the accuracy of the Textus Recep…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Welcome to the Puritan Board DJ.
Durham draws out hard truths and union of divided churches is difficult enough without erecting new barriers against it.

It is good to have venues like this to dialogue. There are three issues here for me which are distinct but related.

The first is how all this relates to the classic Scottish position (which Reformed Covenanter alludes to) of James Durham: what does not justify initial separation cannot justify subsequent failure to unite....

The third issue is how to deal with our history. That which was a blessing in the past can become a hindrance in the present - just think of the bronze serpent. It seems like arguments over the distant past have become a hindrance to present unity, which seems wrong on a number of levels....



Donald John MacLean
Elder, Cambridge, UK

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I'll just pop back in to note that there are different nuances of opinion within the FCC on textual issues. While the modern critical approach to the text of Scripture is universally rejected as inconsistent with the Confessional doctrine of providential preservation, there is not uniform agreement on the transmission or identity of the text in every point.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

It is good to have venues like this to dialogue. There are three issues here for me which are distinct but related.

The first is how all this relates to the classic Scottish position (which Reformed Covenanter alludes to) of James Durham: what does not justify initial separation cannot justify subsequent failure to unite. I am not aware of any church division caused by differing views on the text of scripture in the history of the Free Church of Scotland. In the post-1900 Free Church advocacy of the critical text and the use of the NIV was widespread before the division of 2000 which created the FCC. And yet no one separated because of that. So, per Durham, given it did not create division in the past, should it block union now? A case would need to be made that the current divided state is consistent with the old Scottish doctrine of church unity.

The second issue is - has the Free Church of Scotland, since her separate existence in 1843, adopted a TR only interpretation of the Confession? I don’t see that she has. As conservative a figure like William Cunningham, for example, states: “There are some small portions of the Bible in regard to which it is doubtful, and the doubt cannot be altogether removed, whether or not they ought to stand as part of the sacred text: and there are passages where it is doubtful, and the doubt cannot be fully and certainly resolved, whether one word or phrase or a different one proceeded from the original authors. This is certain, and in regard to the Greek New Testament has been always known and conceded.” So it would have to be demonstrated that the Free Church of Scotland’s founding fathers and her General Assemblies historically interpreted its constitution as TR only. If such a case has been made I’d be interested to read it.

The third issue is how to deal with our history. That which was a blessing in the past can become a hindrance in the present - just think of the bronze serpent. It seems like arguments over the distant past have become a hindrance to present unity, which seems wrong on a number of levels.

It has struck me often that after unfolding the riches of God’s sovereign saving grace in Christ Jesus, Paul’s first application in Ephesians is the call to “endeavour to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” And Paul follows this with multiple doctrinal reasons why this must be our attitude as believers. My hope is that we would return to the old doctrine of the church outlined by James Durham (and many others), for in doing that church unions would surely follow.

PS None of this is to advocate for or against the TR… simply about what views should or shouldn’t prevent union.

Donald John MacLean
Elder, Cambridge, UK

Dear Mr MacLean,

Thank you for this thoughtful message. I share here some of my thoughts concerning it.

Concerning the first issue, I think this principle (Durham’s one) is good and very useful. But I also think that it should be carefully applied and not absolutised. The reality is that both potential and actual divisive issues are legitimate grounds for preventing unions until they are biblically dealt with. Potential divisive issues are actual divisive issues in power. For an example, the promotion of homosexuality has never caused any division in Scottish Church History but it doesn’t mean that promotion of homosexuality should not be an issue preventing union.
Division are complex events and process, often not unifactorial. Some issues are tolerated in the Church for a long time before becoming actually divisive matters, as both the Disruption and Union Controversies illustrate. The Critical Text did not exist until the 19th century so it could not be an issue for the Church before. But there is nothing abnormal in seeing it as more and more controversial with the passing of time, until becoming a potential divisive issue able to prevent union.

Concerning the second issue, with all due respect, I struggle to see the relevancy of such an argument which I heard several times. I can argue from Free Church Minsters for the use of uninspired materials in Worship, for the use of instrumental music, for universal atonement and against the Establishment Principle etc.
The Free Church has a constitution and this constitution is above any private opinion of theologians. Furthermore, there is no reason to attribute to the Disruption fathers some special intention regarding the constitution they have vowed to uphold. The Free Church constitution is the national Church constitution, it has not changed with the Disruption. So, the only relevant intention would be that of the Church of Scotland adopting her constitution.
Then the true question is: did the National Church, in adopting her constitution, intent to allow a text of the Bible which was inexistant at that time? The burden of proof is upon those who answer positively to this question, not upon those who adhere to the text of the Reformation.

Friendly,
Every blessing

Hugues

 

[ZackF]

While the modern critical approach to the text of Scripture is universally rejected as inconsistent with the Confessional doctrine of providential preservation, there is not uniform agreement on the transmission or identity of the text in every point.

Is there a study committee or position paper somewhere that explains the rejection of the modern critical approach? I would like to read that. Ty.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Is there a study committee or position paper somewhere that explains the rejection of the modern critical approach? I would like to read that. Ty.

Hey, brother. I'm not aware of anything.

 

[Djmaclean]

Dear Brother

Thank you for your kind reply.

Yes, it is right that after division matters become complex and many issues tend to perpetuate division which were not the original causes of it. That is why separation in itself is such a serious thing. To follow on from your example, Scottish church history has many cases of discipline for sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and woman. However, I do not believe there have been corresponding cases of discipline in the Free Church for purely textual matters. Which suggests the church has understood her constitution to commit her to a clear doctrine of marriage, but not to an exact definition of the original text. To quote Cunningham (perhaps Scotland's most significant church historian) again on diversity in the underlying text: “This… in regard to the Greek New Testament has been always known and conceded.” So, to make the case the constitution of the Free Church requires the TR (and, of course, all acknowledge differences in editions of the TR), we would have to prove Cunningham was a) wrong historically and b) that the animus imponentis of the Free Church in adopting the Confession was to rule out the views of Cunningham. I don't think either case is easily made.

Apologies if the second point was unclear, but it relates to the animus imponentis of the Free Church. So if, for example, William Cunningham’s views on the text of scripture are not acceptable, that would significantly call into question the continuity of the FCC with the disruption Free Church, at least in spirit. Cunningham, after all, being perhaps the theological driving force behind the disruption.

For me it is instructive to understand historically what has led to disunion. It shows us how high the bar should be for division the body of Christ. Our forefathers allowed a lot before there was church division. The men in the national Reformed church from her establishment in 1560 to the Glasgow assembly of 1638 endured a tremendous amount of error. The men in national church from the revolution settlement to the disruption endured, again, tremendous error. And similarly in the Free Church of Scotland in the run up to 1900, men endured grievous error in the church. I do, sadly, believe we are a long way from the doctrine of the church of our forefathers, as seen in their writings, and in the faithful expositions of them by Walker and MacPherson.

Please do not misunderstand me as denigrating the TR, or advocating for doctrinal or practical laxity in the church. The context here is what we are to bear with for the sake of unity, not what we are to contend for, or strive for the church to be. So James Walker: "Now all this did not mean that the Church was to be lax. She was, on the contrary, to be the pillar and ground of the truth. She was to hunt out all scandals from her borders with a holy zeal. It is needless to say that Rutherford and Dickson were not latitudinarians. What ought to be borne from the Church, without breaking its visible unity, was an entirely different matter from what was the Church's duty in keeping purity of doctrine and life within her pale."

Thank you again for the dialogue, it is good to discuss these things as brothers and is deeply appreciated.

Every blessing
DJ

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The dispute as to whether or not the FCC is even a TR-purist denomination, or whether or not this view is a barrier to union with the RPCS, ought not to be decided on an internet forum. It is precisely why negotiations between the two parties are essential, and why talk of union ought not to be dismissed out of hand.

But I will repeat what I said in my initial comment on this thread: Until all parties are prepared to stop purity-spiralling, any hope of greater union is a non-starter. The RPCS needs to be prepared to set aside some of their extra-confessional oddities. The FCC needs to be prepared to do the same. The heart of the matter is do you prefer the vindication of a party to the greater unity and well-being of Christ's church?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Consider the doctrine of exclusive psalmody. For some, the necessity of adhering to that doctrine with no compromise, and the vigorous defense of it, will be seen as purity-spiraling. So with doctrinal issues surrounding the TR.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Consider the doctrine of exclusive psalmody. For some, the necessity of adhering to that doctrine with no compromise, and the vigorous defense of it, will be seen as purity-spiraling. So with doctrinal issues surrounding the TR.

But would you even be content with exclusive psalmody or would you insist on the Scottish Metrical Version only? Plus, given that TR-purism, unlike exclusive psalmody, has no constitutional basis in the Free Church tradition, as the extract from William Cunningham proves, it cannot be a barrier to the supposedly "real" Free Church uniting with another group.

And, for the record, I do not believe that exclusive psalmody automatically should be a reason for separation or division. Plenty of us here are EP but attend churches that are not.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Let us take the subject of Christ's mediatorial kingship over the nations (hereafter, MK) as an example of how purity-spiralling leads to evil on both sides of this discussion.

The RPs are wrong to make their view of MK a test of orthodoxy and ministerial communion. Doing so excludes the likes of Alexander Henderson and George Gillespie from "the church of the covenants", and it goes beyond the Westminster Confession.

The FCC people, or at least the ones I have come across, also need to give up their sectarian opposition to MK. They are free within confessional bounds to disagree with it, but they seem to run to the other extreme of thinking that it is heterodox. The reality is that plenty of our divines did believe that Christ governs the nations as mediator, even though civil government is founded in nature. Given that the RP view is within the bounds of the Westminster Confession, they should be free to hold that view in a confessional church.

 

[Rom]

The FCC people, or at least the ones I have come across, also need to give up their sectarian opposition to MK.

I can tell you that MK men are embraced in the FCC, there is no official position on it, and men on both sides of the issue are admitted.

 

[Solparvus]

Let us take the subject of Christ's mediatorial kingship over the nations (hereafter, MK) as an example of how purity-spiralling leads to evil on both sides of this discussion.

The RPs are wrong to make their view of MK a test of orthodoxy and ministerial communion. Doing so excludes the likes of Alexander Henderson and George Gillespie from "the church of the covenants", and it goes beyond the Westminster Confession.

The FCC people, or at least the ones I have come across, also need to give up their sectarian opposition to MK. They are free within confessional bounds to disagree with it, but they seem to run to the other extreme of thinking that it is heterodox. The reality is that plenty of our divines did believe that Christ governs the nations as mediator, even though civil government is founded in nature. Given that the RP view is within the bounds of the Westminster Confession, they should be free to hold that view in a confessional church.

I still do not understand the difference between the RP's and FCC's on this. Each time I've looked at it they've seemed really close. Could anyone provide a clear analysis of the distinction?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

But would you even be content with exclusive psalmody or would you insist on the Scottish Metrical Version only? Plus, given that TR-purism, unlike exclusive psalmody, has no constitutional basis in the Free Church tradition, as the extract from William Cunningham proves, it cannot be a barrier to the supposedly "real" Free Church uniting with another group.

And, for the record, I do not believe that exclusive psalmody automatically should be a reason for separation or division. Plenty of us here are EP but attend churches that are not.

I don't want to get too deeply into it, but I think the matter of the TR and critical text may be seen as an issue that wasn't fully thought-out and addressed in times before, but needs to be addressed and a stand taken on it now (maybe similar to creation issues). Maybe the fact that the 1650 is the only/best TR translation in common use would be the reason for clinging to it. Perhaps there would be no opposition to a revised translation of a TR psalter in future times of greater unity.

I agree with you on your second paragraph but don't think the union of two denominations can be compared to individuals having to attend non-EP churches.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Consider the doctrine of exclusive psalmody. For some, the necessity of adhering to that doctrine with no compromise, and the vigorous defense of it, will be seen as purity-spiraling. So with doctrinal issues surrounding the TR.

The former is clearly spelled out in the Westminster Standards a required duty (see "Of Singing of Psalms." in The Directory of Publick Worship), the latter is not (as clearly shown above).

But would you even be content with exclusive psalmody or would you insist on the Scottish Metrical Version only?

This is a great question as the Westminster Standards do not require a certain version of the psalter. The The Directory of Publick Worship was adopted in 1645. The "1650" psalter underwent years of revision (David Silversides produced an excellent history of this process) before it was adopted and sanctioned by members of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1649. Do I prefer the 1650? Yes (for many of the reasons Silversides put forth). Do or would I break fellowship over it? No.

...is within the bounds of the Westminster Confession...

This is the key - the Standards were developed as a source of unity: "to bring the Churches of God... to the nearest conjunction and uniformity in religion, confession of faith, form of Church government, directory for worship and catechising, that we, and our posterity after us, may, as brethren, live in faith and love, and the Lord may delight to dwell in the midst of us." (SL&C 1.) To claim to be a successor to the Westminster tradition while denying union for issues beyond it is to betray the spirit in which the Standards were written, debated, and adopted.

I can tell you that MK men are embraced in the FCC...

On both sides of the Atlantic?

 

[MChase]

I still do not understand the difference between the RP's and FCC's on this. Each time I've looked at it they've seemed really close. Could anyone provide a clear analysis of the distinction?

RP's view Christ's reign as encompassing all temporal government as he is mediator. The other view is that Christ rules over the nations for the sake of his Church. It is a fine distinction and one that I am not sure everyone confessing 'MK' or 'not MK' understands. I am not sure that I fully understand if this is the official (or unofficially official) FCC view in Scotland, but as Pastor Rom stated, there is a man in the US presbytery that is a committed MK guy.

From the outside looking in, I confess I do not always understand the RP position as it is concretely conceived in the mind of her ministers. Sometimes I think I can agree and other times I am not quite so sure. From my point of view, it is a strange distinctive to make a term of ministerial communion, but on the other hand I am quite thankful for the RPCNA's testimony for psalm singing and they have done in America that far outweighs any of us small-P folks.

 

[Rom]

On both sides of the Atlantic?

Ministers on my side of the Atlantic have to be approved for admission by the whole General Assembly, so, yes.

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Plus, given that TR-purism, unlike exclusive psalmody, has no constitutional basis in the Free Church tradition, as the extract from William Cunningham proves, it cannot be a barrier to the supposedly "real" Free Church uniting with another group.

How will you prove the constitutional basis of exclusive psalmody?