Kenneth Stewart's plea for unity

[Logan]

For the curious, relevant past responses are here, here, here, and here.

 

[Djmaclean]

The ongoing conversations here have been constructive. I will close by returning to my main point on ecclesiology rather than on the TR. If we are seeking to be confessional then we need to reckon with not just WCoF 1:8 (and Chalmers and Cunningham did not see this as the TR) but with WCoF 26:2, “Saints by profession, are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God… Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.”

It is a confessional duty not to separate and worship as three or four different reformed denominations in a small town or village. To see what this meant to our forefathers consider David Dickson:

“the Apostles calls the Galatians, the Church of Christ, brethren, and the children of God, who were yet in some measure removed from GOD, to another Gospel. Nay, says Paul, O foolish, (or senseless) Galatians, who hath bewitched you, (that is, so blinded the eyes of your understanding, that ye cannot see the right truth…) that ye should not obey the truth; Gal. 3. 1. And yet since it was a constitute true Church, it was his judgment, there should be no separation from it, notwithstanding of all the foresaid faults.”

This may seem strange, but it was the ecclesiology confessed and practiced by our forefathers. It is from a return to that ecclesiology that union amongst reformed churches will come, and debates over the TR be placed in proper context. May that day come soon.

 

[Sam Jer]

This thread really does make one think.
Perhaps the American church would be much better off if the various denominations dissolved into one, say the PCA, bringing with their'e superior theology (let the hearer understand), psalmody, and Heidelberg Cathecism with them, rather than trying to maintain islands of various warring distinctives?

Which raises the question - should the question of who the true succesor of the Philadelphia Synod and old PCUSA have any relevance today? Or is it more a question of which one currently exhibits the best catholicity and purity today?

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Dear Brother

Thank you again for the engagement. I suppose there remain two areas of disagreement:

- Did the Free Church ever understand the Westminster Confession to commit her to the TR text tradition? I see evidence she didn't, and I don't think we can fall back on continuity with the Second Reformation (I'm not sure such an idea is actually problematic for Cunningham, but that is a wider historical question) to override the interpretation of the Confession revealed in the theory and practice of the 1843/1900 Free Church. I don't see how a church without Cunningham remains the Free Church.
- What are the implications of the older doctrine of the church for us today? I cannot see a path to reconcile the confessional/constitutional/second reformation doctrine of the church with the current division in Psalm singing churches in Scotland.

It has been good to discuss these matters in charity, and maybe one day in person we can continue dialogue!

Permit me to quote Durham in closing, which I'm sure we can all pray to see more lived out, even if we are not aligned on what this means in practice now:

"It is the duty of all Christians, especially of Ministers of the Gospel, to endeavour the preserving of unity, and the preventing of division, and the recovering of unity, and removing of division, by healing of the breach when it is made. Never did men run to quench fire in a City, lest all should be destroyed, with more diligence, than men ought to bestir themselves to quench this in the Church; never did mariners use more speed to stop a leak in a ship, lest all should be drowned, than Ministers especially, and all Christian men, should haste to stop this beginning of the breaking in of these waters of strife, lest thereby the whole Church be overwhelmed; And if the many evils which follow thereupon, the many commands whereby union is pressed; yea, the many entreaties and obtestations whereby the Holy Ghost doth so frequently urge this upon all, as a thing most acceptable to Him, and profitable to us; If, I say, these and many other such considerations, have not weight to convince of the necessity of this duty, to prevent, or heal a breach, We cannot tell what can prevail with men, that professe reverence to the great and dreadfull Name of God, conscience of duty, and respect to the edification of the Church, and to their own peace at the appearance of the Lord in the great Day, wherein the peace-makers shall be blessed; for, they shall be called the children of God."

Every blessing
DJ

Brother,

I had just forgotten to come back to you. My apologies for the delay.

I have enjoyed the discussion with you and I would be very happy to continue it face to face, one of these days, DV.

I sincerely appreciate your desire for unity. And we should all share it, seeking the healing of old wounds. Thank you for that. May the Lord build up His Church.

Every blessing brother.

Hugues

 

[Hugues Pierre]

Dear Brother,

My apologies for the lack of clarity in what I said, and for the delay in my answer.

I believe that the Confession is clear regarding the possession of the pure and authentic Hebrew and Greek texts.

1. It would have been strange for the Divines to claim for a Scripture kept pure in all ages without possessing it, especially in the context of the whole first chapter which contains many teachings and rules regarding this Scripture.

2. Then, only the Scripture kept pure in all ages can be the judge in all controversies of religion according to the Confession. The Divines appealed to the TR in their confessionnal articles, which are religiously controversial.

3. Finally, only this authentic Scripture kept pure in all ages should be translated into vulgar languages. The Divines used a TR translation. There were many translations of the TR at that time, in several languages.

I hope that is helpful, brother. It will be my last post on this subject.

Many thanks for the discussion. May the Lord bless you.

Blessings

Brother, I appreciate your replies, but I must admit I'm a bit lost trying to figure out how to respond to your responses. The WCF simply states in 1.8 that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek were "immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages." Nowhere does it state that in all ages that those texts were known to man. The same argument can be used with the proof text provided for WCF 1.8, Matthew 5.18: "For truly I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle of the Law shall not pass away, till all things be fulfilled." Christ taught that that every jot or tittle will remain - He did not say they would always be known. In fact, it is a regular teaching of the Prophets, Christ, and the Apostles that sometimes He hides His Word - see Matthew 13.13-17 and Acts 28.25-28 (both quoting Isaiah), for examples.

Scripture further testifies of itself that its text can be "lost," remain hidden, and then be brought to light. See for example II Kings 22.8-10: "And Hilkiah the high Priest said unto Shaphan the chancellor, I have found the book of the Law in the house of the Lord: and Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it.... Also Shaphan the chancellor showed the king, saying, 'Hilkiah the Priest hath delivered me a book.' And Shaphan read it before the King." The Geneva notes suggest: "This was the copy that Moses left them, as appeareth, 2 Chron. 34:14, which either by the negligence of the Priests had been lost, or else by the wickedness of idolatrous kings had been abolished."

Your question (Did [the Westminster Divines] possess the pure sources mentioned in the Confession, i.e the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek?) cannot be answered by appealing to the Confession alone, but would instead have to be answered by looking at the personal writings of the divines, which have you stated are both "important," but could also "be at variance with the Confession." So my question is, where in the Westminster Standards or in the writings of its authors is there a claim that they in that age possessed the pure Hebrew and Greek texts?

As I believe the II Kings passage teaches, the Scriptures can be kept pure by God's singular care and providence without man having access to them for a season. I am not saying that is true or not of the age of the Westminster Assembly because I see no evidence that they made either claim.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Dear Brother,

My apologies for the lack of clarity in what I said, and for the delay in my answer.

I believe that the Confession is clear regarding the possession of the pure and authentic Hebrew and Greek texts.

1. It would have been strange for the Divines to claim for a Scripture kept pure in all ages without possessing it, especially in the context of the whole first chapter which contains many teachings and rules regarding this Scripture.

2. Then, only the Scripture kept pure in all ages can be the judge in all controversies of religion according to the Confession. The Divines appealed to the TR in their confessionnal articles, which are religiously controversial.

3. Finally, only this authentic Scripture kept pure in all ages should be translated into vulgar languages. The Divines used a TR translation. There were many translations of the TR at that time, in several languages.

I hope that is helpful, brother. It will be my last post on this subject.

Many thanks for the discussion. May the Lord bless you.

Blessings

Thank you, brother, for joining and contributing to this thread. I appreciate the charitable responses you have given on a topic that often inflames the brethren. May you and your congregation continue to be blessed. (One of my father's dear friends while I was growing up was an evangelical missionary to France, so I have long - since my youth - prayed for revival in your land, the land of Calvin!)

 

[Northern Crofter]

This thread really does make one think.
Perhaps the American church would be much better off if the various denominations dissolved into one, say the PCA, bringing with their'e superior theology (let the hearer understand), psalmody, and Heidelberg Cathecism with them, rather than trying to maintain islands of various warring distinctives?

My own view is that this could - and should - only happen if they first all agreed on a common confession (either all adopting an existing one or agreeing to a new one).

Which raises the question - should the question of who the true succesor of the Philadelphia Synod and old PCUSA have any relevance today? Or is it more a question of which one currently exhibits the best catholicity and purity today?

Why the Philadelphia Synod and old PCUSA? There are (sadly) multiple lines that could claim to be "the true successor" of reformed presbyterianism - 2 major ones, at least - in the US (and this old wikipedia chart isn't even up to date):

 

[Sam Jer]

My own view is that this could - and should - only happen if they first all agreed on a common confession (either all adopting an existing one or agreeing to a new one).

I understand what your'e saying, but those who adhere to Westminster vs 3FU usually agree with both.
And I can't see a case for the few revisions of these confessions having introduced any new bindings. If they did, and said bindings are contrary to scripture, those who have that error in their'e confession would be the schismatics.
And yes, perhaps NAPARC churches should hold a synod and adopt a common confession. This would at least unify many, even if a few microdenominations leave the synod over not being able to force everyone to adopt distinctive X

Why the Philadelphia Synod and old PCUSA? There are (sadly) multiple lines that could claim to be "the true successor" of reformed presbyterianism - 2 major ones, at least - in the US (and this old wikipedia chart isn't even up to date):

View attachment 10783

I thought those bottom two starts on the left united into the ARP. I don't really know the history well (only read up on the subject through wikipedia not too far back) but I got the impression they both showed up at a time that there already was a Presbytery or Synod at philadelphia and proceeded to maintain their'e own anyway. Either way, not every microdenomination can claim legitimacy, and not all who claim it would necessarily be correct in claiming it.

The greater practical issue is the north-south schism. If you say the PCUS was right to not rebel against the local state governments, you may end up with the PCA having a "claim" in the south and the OPC in the north. We know that no such geographical distinction really exists anymore, and besides, where does it leave the western half of that continent?

 

[Jake]

I thought those bottom two starts on the left united into the ARP. I don't really know the history well (only read up on the subject through wikipedia not too far back) but I got the impression they both showed up at a time that there already was a Presbytery or Synod at philadelphia and proceeded to maintain their'e own anyway. Either way, not every microdenomination can claim legitimacy, and not all who claim it would necessarily be correct in claiming it.

I'll try to answer this as an enthusiast on the history of the ARP Church, but not a historian.

The majority of the RPs and the APs merged to form the ARP Church in 1782. There was a minority who stayed out of the merger and both lines (RP and AP) continued in addition to the new church body.

The RPs who stayed out of the ARP merger were very few in number with no ministers, so they petitioned the RPCoS to send over ministers to continue as a church. They split into new lights and old lights in the 1830s. The new lights eventually merged into the RPCES which merged into the PCA. The old lights are the modern RPCNA, though they changed some in 1969 when the APs merged with them (see next paragraph).

The APs who stayed out of the ARP merger was a slightly larger group than the RPs. They continued as a separate body until 1969 when they merged with the RPCNA. The RPCNA of today has influenced from the RPs and the APs in its Constitution.

The ARP split into different regional synods around 1803. Each synod was supposed to meet with the others every few years, but due to travel difficult these synods eventually stopped meeting as a single denomination. The ARP Synod of the South continued as a separate body to this day, whereas the other ARP synods eventually re-united to form the United Presbyterian Church which later merged with the northern mainline Presbyterians (UPCNA -> UPCUSA -> PCUSA). The modern ARP Church has a direct line back to the Synod of the South of the ARP Church.

 

[Sam Jer]

I'll try to answer this as an enthusiast on the history of the ARP Church, but not a historian.

The majority of the RPs and the APs merged to form the ARP Church in 1782. There was a minority who stayed out of the merger and both lines (RP and AP) continued in addition to the new church body.

The RPs who stayed out of the ARP merger were very few in number with no ministers, so they petitioned the RPCoS to send over ministers to continue as a church. They split into new lights and old lights in the 1830s. The new lights eventually merged into the RPCES which merged into the PCA. The old lights are the modern RPCNA, though they changed some in 1969 when the APs merged with them (see next paragraph).

The APs who stayed out of the ARP merger was a slightly larger group than the RPs. They continued as a separate body until 1969 when they merged with the RPCNA. The RPCNA of today has influenced from the RPs and the APs in its Constitution.

The ARP split into different regional synods around 1803. Each synod was supposed to meet with the others every few years, but due to travel difficult these synods eventually stopped meeting as a single denomination. The ARP Synod of the South continued as a separate body to this day, whereas the other ARP synods eventually re-united to form the United Presbyterian Church which later merged with the northern mainline Presbyterians (UPCNA -> UPCUSA -> PCUSA). The modern ARP Church has a direct line back to the Synod of the South of the ARP Church.

This really clarifies a lot.
When did the founders of the RP's and AP's come in relation to the Presbytery of Philadelphia?

Why the Philadelphia Synod and old PCUSA? There are (sadly) multiple lines that could claim to be "the true successor" of reformed presbyterianism

The greater question is if these historical questions have bearing on who the "legitimate" ones are.

 

[Northern Crofter]

RP = American descendants of Scottish "Covenanters" (did not rejoin Church of Scotland after Revolution Settlement)

ARP = American descendants of Scottish "Seceders" (did rejoin Church of Scotland after Revolution Settlement but later left largely for the reasons the RP didn't join - as would the Free Church later)

Philadelphia Synod and old PCUSA = American descendants of British Presbyterians who joined the Church of Scotland after Revolution Settlement

So, depending on what you think about the Revolution Settlement largely determines the answer to this:

The greater question is if these historical questions have bearing on who the "legitimate" ones are.

 

[iainduguid]

My own view is that this could - and should - only happen if they first all agreed on a common confession (either all adopting an existing one or agreeing to a new one).

At least in the US, official Confessional differences are not really the issue, at least between OPC, PCA, and ARP. We all subscribe the the same Confession, though there would be some variance in what we mean by that in different denominations.There are some PCA (and ARP) pastors who wouldn't pass muster in the OPC - but then they might not pass muster in other PCA/ARP presbyteries, either. But there are equally large divisions in the way the denominations operate. To (over)simplify, both the OPC and (to a lesser extent) ARP are centrally organized, where the PCA is (in principle at least) grass roots driven. This shows up in their different approach to funding missionaries, and expecting local churches to contribute to central funds. A new united denomination would have to sort out a multitude of such differences (which may be strongly held on both sides). It would have to choose between the delegated assembly of the OPC and an open Assembly/Synod of the PCA/ARP - though the latter would be hard to maintain given how huge it would become. Centrally controlled large churches don't have a great history: the "liberals" tend to gravitate towards these roles because they aren't much interested in pastoral ministry. And so on.

I think Bob Godfrey's proposal, which someone mentioned in an earlier post, for a kind of synodical union that allowed for the maintenance of local distinctives at the presbytery/general assembly level is probably the most practical way to achieve some kind of visible unity, without forcing churches to violate their consciences. It would essentially involve taking NAPARC to the next level. The Synod would retain ultimate control of church discipline by being able to rebuke or expel a member denomination (as NAPARC did with the CRC), while retaining the right of more local discipline within the member denominations.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I think Bob Godfrey's proposal, which someone mentioned in an earlier post, for a kind of synodical union that allowed for the maintenance of local distinctives at the presbytery/general assembly level is probably the most practical way to achieve some kind of visible unity, without forcing churches to violate their consciences. It would essentially involve taking NAPARC to the next level.

I agree with this sentiment, but how does this not just end up as another CREC?

The Synod would retain ultimate control of church discipline by being able to rebuke or expel a member denomination (as NAPARC did with the CRC), while retaining the right of more local discipline within the member denominations.

But would/could a member of a congregation be able to be disciplined for something allowable elsewhere in the denomination? (For example, say a particular presbytery believes in head coverings or is not EP and a member refuses to cover or sing uninspired praise?)

But there are equally large divisions in the way the denominations operate.

In this aspect, when it comes to circumstances concerning the government of the Church, I think you would follow the numbers - go with the organizational structure of the largest denomination. I would think that would be the easiest thing to give up for the sake of unity.

 

[Sam Jer]

At least in the US, official Confessional differences are not really the issue, at least between OPC, PCA, and ARP. We all subscribe the the same Confession, though there would be some variance in what we mean by that in different denominations.There are some PCA (and ARP) pastors who wouldn't pass muster in the OPC - but then they might not pass muster in other PCA/ARP presbyteries, either. But there are equally large divisions in the way the denominations operate. To (over)simplify, both the OPC and (to a lesser extent) ARP are centrally organized, where the PCA is (in principle at least) grass roots driven. This shows up in their different approach to funding missionaries, and expecting local churches to contribute to central funds. A new united denomination would have to sort out a multitude of such differences (which may be strongly held on both sides). It would have to choose between the delegated assembly of the OPC and an open Assembly/Synod of the PCA/ARP - though the latter would be hard to maintain given how huge it would become. Centrally controlled large churches don't have a great history: the "liberals" tend to gravitate towards these roles because they aren't much interested in pastoral ministry. And so on.

I think Bob Godfrey's proposal, which someone mentioned in an earlier post, for a kind of synodical union that allowed for the maintenance of local distinctives at the presbytery/general assembly level is probably the most practical way to achieve some kind of visible unity, without forcing churches to violate their consciences. It would essentially involve taking NAPARC to the next level. The Synod would retain ultimate control of church discipline by being able to rebuke or expel a member denomination (as NAPARC did with the CRC), while retaining the right of more local discipline within the member denominations.

I think some children of the continental church are more "grass-roots" too. Yes, if a common synod unites the church rather than everone joining one of the existing institutions, it would need to come up with a church order.

RP = American descendants of Scottish "Covenanters" (did not rejoin Church of Scotland after Revolution Settlement)

ARP = American descendants of Scottish "Seceders" ( (did rejoin Church of Scotland after Revolution Settlement but later left largely for the reasons the RP didn't join - as would the Free Church later)

Philadelphia Synod and old PCUSA = American descendants of British Presbyterians who joined the Church of Scotland after Revolution Settlement

So, depending on what you think about the Revolution Settlement largely determine the answer to this:

The question is rather if those questions should be determanitive of the correct lineage or if the current situation is the only basis (if it is the latter, I say the more "hard-core" people go to the PCA and turn it in a more conservative direction).

But would/could a member of a congregation be able to be disciplined for something allowable elsewhere in the denomination? (For example, say a particular presbytery believes in head coverings or is not EP and a member refuses to cover or sing uninspired praise?)

This is one of the problems with the setup.
Also, eventually someone would want to leave denomination X.
Let's say someone who dosen't like GA X's general direction. Let's call him... Joel. Let's say he get's in trouble for a discipline question on which good men differ. Say divorce. He and a bunch of people in the denomination decide to leave. Would NAPARC-Synod uphold denomination X's discipline or accept him, now as the most powerful person in a new GA?
If the answer is to accept him, why did we even go through the trouble to create this assembly. If the answer is to uphold the discipline of denomination X, you just booted Joel Beeke, HRC, and the accompanying institutional powerhouse from NAPARC Synod.

Additionally, any sort of joint denomination should strive for regional Presbyteries to emerge eventually.

An idea that is less grandioze, but could take things in the right direction, is for a large denomination (let's stick with PCA) creating a non-regional synod or presbytery as a temporary arrangement, with said synod or presbytery's member sessions slowly integrating into the local presbytery's. This could for example help bring in a smaller denomination like the URCNA, one of the Korean churches, or even one of the EP denominations.

But would/could a member of a congregation be able to be disciplined for something allowable elsewhere in the denomination? (For example, say a particular presbytery believes in head coverings or is not EP and a member refuses to cover or sing uninspired praise?)

Those would be areas where members would need to submit to their'e elders if they truly believe it to be adiaphora, wouldn't it?
Also, should the church remain in schism because we disagree on head coverings?

 

[Northern Crofter]

members would need to submit to their'e elders if they truly believe it to be adiaphora

That's the heart of the problem - not everyone agrees what is adiaphora. What some truly believe are issues of Christian liberty others hold to be matters of conscience.

Also, should the church remain in schism because we disagree on head coverings?

No, I was not suggesting that - I was referring to the issue of mutual recognition of one another's discipline. For example, in NAPARC, by agreement, you generally cannot transfer to another congregation in another denomination if you are under discipline (especially if you are a minister). I support such mutual upholding of one another's discipline but it can nevertheless present a problem if the discipline is based on a distinctive that is not an issue with other member denominations.

 

[Sam Jer]

That's the heart of the problem - not everyone agrees what is adiaphora. What some truly believe are issues of Christian liberty others hold to be matters of conscience.

No, I was not suggesting that - I was referring to the issue of mutual recognition of one another's discipline. For example, in NAPARC, by agreement, you generally cannot transfer to another congregation in another denomination if you are under discipline (especially if you are a minister). I support such mutual upholding of one another's discipline but it can nevertheless present a problem if the discipline is based on a distinctive that is not an issue with other member denominations.

I am talking about the member of the head covering EP church. I agree head covering is not adiaphora. But say it was - wouldn't it be sinful for a non-covering women to disobey the session on this matter? Even if sung prayers are adiaphora, they wouldn't be so for someone whose church forbids it. You see what I am getting at?

 

[Northern Crofter]

wouldn't it be sinful for a non-covering women to disobey the session on this matter?

Yes. Would she be allowed to transfer to another congregation who does not hold to or enforce such a belief?

I agree head covering is not adiaphora.... Even if sung prayers are adiaphora....

But who decides? If multiple presbyteries or denominations enter a union with their distinctives intact, would they have to agree to the possibility of having them ruled against in a synod/general assembly (for example, the woman submits but begins a petition or appeals her session's decision)? If so, wouldn't this outright prevent many smaller bodies from joining if they know the larger bodies already hold opposite convictions? If not, is this (see the CREC) really unity?

 

[Deleted member 6112]

Amidst all the schemes to arrive at unity by trying to gloss over differences in conviction (and thus errors), I'm looking for an outpouring of the Spirit, resulting in covenanted uniformity in religion countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate. That's the true path to unity. "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit." And may he hasten the day! "Do good in the good pleasure unto Zion; build thou the walls of Jerusalem."

 

[Sam Jer]

Amidst all the schemes to arrive at unity by trying to gloss over differences in conviction (and thus errors),

I am not, mind you, advocating Godfrey's solution.

I'm looking for an outpouring of the Spirit, resulting in covenanted uniformity in religion countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.

So you are a postmillenial covenanter, I see.

That's the true path to unity. "Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit." And may he hasten the day! "Do good in the good pleasure unto Zion; build thou the walls of Jerusalem."

Indeed, it is by God alone.

 

[Sam Jer]

Yes. Would she be allowed to transfer to another congregation who does not hold to or enforce such a belief?

But who decides? If multiple presbyteries or denominations enter a union with their distinctives intact, would they have to agree to the possibility of having them ruled against in a synod/general assembly (for example, the woman submits but begins a petition or appeals her session's decision)? If so, wouldn't this outright prevent many smaller bodies from joining if they know the larger bodies already hold opposite convictions? If not, is this (see the CREC) really unity?

Again, I think the solution of Godfrey has significant holes in it. I pointed it out too - see my comment on the HRC and if it would form during the existance of a permenant NAPARC-synod.

This is one of the problems with the setup.
Also, eventually someone would want to leave denomination X.
Let's say someone who dosen't like GA X's general direction. Let's call him... Joel. Let's say he get's in trouble for a discipline question on which good men differ. Say divorce. He and a bunch of people in the denomination decide to leave. Would NAPARC-Synod uphold denomination X's discipline or accept him, now as the most powerful person in a new GA?
If the answer is to accept him, why did we even go through the trouble to create this assembly. If the answer is to uphold the discipline of denomination X, you just booted Joel Beeke, HRC, and the accompanying institutional powerhouse from NAPARC Synod.

Additionally, any sort of joint denomination should strive for regional Presbyteries to emerge eventually.

 

[Northern Crofter]

So you are a postmillenial covenanter, I seesee

Why the pigeonholing? Anyone who subscribes to the original Westminster Standards believes in covenanted uniformity in religion countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.

 

[Sam Jer]

Why the pigeonholing? Anyone who subscribes to the original Westminster Standards believes in covenanted uniformity in religion countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.

I thought that view was called covenanter postmillenialism. If that rarger refers to a smaller specific movement apologize.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

When you look back at the history of the church from her infancy under-age to now, you see growth and the times of the unifying of the visible church. Not without its ups and downs, spiritual advances and declines, etc.- but the general trajectory has been advance, with so far, the Westminster Assembly being the church council that gathered together all the attainments so far, and addressed and settled previously unaddressed and unsettled matters; in so doing, bringing about a brief but very glorious visible unity in the visible Reformed church. Satan surely hated that, and human nature unaided can't hold onto it. Did the church forget to watch and pray? She has again declined from the attainments she had by God's grace arrived to, and now is largely again in low state of ignorance and sad state of disunity... but as in other times in history, we do have our history to look back to, we don't have to be ignorant; we can know what we have declined from, and by God's grace we can hope and expect to be brought back to and even beyond even those former attainments. I think our hope for this is found in, among other places, Ephesians 4:9-16:

"Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love."

The Unity of the Church | Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian

The largest and most trusted library of over 2 million free audio sermons from conservative Christian churches and ministries worldwide.

www.sermonaudio.com

Rev. Todd Ruddell