Is there a way to access the entire 22 page article referenced at the bottom? Unless I'm overlooking it, I don't see volume 13 of the CPJ available on the GPTS website.
Refusal to gather as the greater sin?
- Thread starter CGS
- Start date
It's not available online; still trying to sell stock of v13. The older issues prior to v17 when GPTS took my baby on as publisher going forward are available at the old cpjournal site. The v13 remains in print (some are OOP, such as v1, v5, v8, v10, soon to be joined by v2). https://www.cpjournal.com/store/. There are less than five 12 issue bundles left which drops to 11 when v2 goes out of print. Vol 13 here.
Sure. Calvin wrote that these practices promoted idolatry, but it seems Calvin thought that believers could worship in assemblies that had them without actually engaging in idolatry. He thought that those in authority bore responsibility for removing them (this is true of images as well; Calvin opposed violent iconoclasm), but that individuals were still responsible to obey legitimate authority when he did not command sin.
I think everything I've written accords with Chris's summary. Calvin was certainly against holy days, but would not advocate leaving the church over them, and indeed led a church that had them. He used his position of authority to try to remove them, but I don't think would have advocated that private individuals absent themselves from worship over it.
Can you (or anyone) recommend any Scripture, sections of the WCF/WSC/WLC, or writings of Reformers/Presbyterians that teach this obligation to protest/make one's concerns known to the session? I would like to study it further.
The reason I did it with my session was to have cards on the table given the membership vows one takes; that the session knows that some things are not endorsed thereby. So ninth commandment; and oaths and vows maybe (without my checking the standards). Subsequently I have heard of presbyterian churches who think membership vows mean you must sing whatever they put in front of you, etc.
thegoadfather
Puritan Board Freshman
So there may be individual circumstances where joining and maybe even attending would be impossible but if so it needs to be forced upon the person not something done willfully?
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
We are never allowed to sin, whether it be lesser or greater.
The ordinances can be corrupted and yet there still may be enough of the true ordinance that they can be used by someone to worship God.
Attendance at worship does not imply approving of all that happens. Consider the preaching of the word: we are to judge it, which implies we are not always giving assent. Consider prayer: we are to add our amen (whether vocal or silent; a debate for another day) or not give it. Even from the light of nature, the attender at the worship service has no control over what happens, and so it is clear that anyone who attends does not necessarily agree with all that happens.
It may help to investigate Scripture at times when worship was corrupted in Israel. One example: Hophni and Phineas with their gross corruption of the sacrifices and taking the Lord's portion to themselves. Who is guilty? The Lord has no charge brought against those who brought the animals for sacrifices. In fact, the people protested to those who did have authority and did these sins (namely, Hophni and Phineas) and tried to plead with them to not do such an evil thing.
Most Reformed people agree that we should not attend a Romish mass. If worship has become so corrupted that the idolatry is formal and not mere superstition/will-worship (search the board for past threads on the distinction), it's time to bow out. We ought not have fellowship with devils, which is what we would be doing in such a scenario.
As for confessional ground for protesting false worship in general, see the Larger Catechism's exposition of the Second Commandment, where we are to disapprove of will worship: "disapproving, detesting, opposing." The only consideration at that point would then be the orderly course of protest.
The ordinances can be corrupted and yet there still may be enough of the true ordinance that they can be used by someone to worship God.
Attendance at worship does not imply approving of all that happens. Consider the preaching of the word: we are to judge it, which implies we are not always giving assent. Consider prayer: we are to add our amen (whether vocal or silent; a debate for another day) or not give it. Even from the light of nature, the attender at the worship service has no control over what happens, and so it is clear that anyone who attends does not necessarily agree with all that happens.
It may help to investigate Scripture at times when worship was corrupted in Israel. One example: Hophni and Phineas with their gross corruption of the sacrifices and taking the Lord's portion to themselves. Who is guilty? The Lord has no charge brought against those who brought the animals for sacrifices. In fact, the people protested to those who did have authority and did these sins (namely, Hophni and Phineas) and tried to plead with them to not do such an evil thing.
Most Reformed people agree that we should not attend a Romish mass. If worship has become so corrupted that the idolatry is formal and not mere superstition/will-worship (search the board for past threads on the distinction), it's time to bow out. We ought not have fellowship with devils, which is what we would be doing in such a scenario.
As for confessional ground for protesting false worship in general, see the Larger Catechism's exposition of the Second Commandment, where we are to disapprove of will worship: "disapproving, detesting, opposing." The only consideration at that point would then be the orderly course of protest.
Last edited:
Correct; if at any point our membership in a church means we will be forced to sin (e.g., sing Fanny Crosby or else), then we need to seek an orderly means of remedy, whether taking an appeal to presbytery (because I'm told this is a wrong interpretation of the membership vows) or cut loses and look for church that understands the membership vows correctly or a more like minded in practice to be transferred to. I'm not sure how you force an adult person to sing or be a member against their will.
So...why is it that Reformed churches are much more tolerant of corruption/diversity of worship practices than they are corruption/diversity of doctrinal views? For example, if someone was teaching/preaching Arminianism or a wrong view of the Trinity, it would not be tolerated, but all kinds of regulative principle violations are tolerated (and even enthusiastically encouraged!). Again, if Calvin was correct, then we should be more concerned about purity/uniformity of worship than soteriological issues.
And why are those who hold to a "strict" view of the RPW - and for the most part, what was the concensus of Reformed believers through the centuries - not working for reform and a return to the old paths? Is it just because we are so few in number?
And why are those who hold to a "strict" view of the RPW - and for the most part, what was the concensus of Reformed believers through the centuries - not working for reform and a return to the old paths? Is it just because we are so few in number?
thegoadfather
Puritan Board Freshman
I’m thinking even attending a church where you are told you can’t be a member would be intolerable. In a sense they would be telling you that you are not a believer.
thegoadfather
Puritan Board Freshman
I would love to read up on a distinction between idolatry and superstition/will worship. I right now can’t really see a distinction unless we are talking degrees like we would of sin in general. I typed in superstition and will worship into the search bar and quite a bit came up, any chance you can suggest key words that you think will bring those threads that you were thinking about to the forefront of the search?
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
Brother, in defense of my denomination, I request that you recant your unfounded and baseless accusation. I am proud to assert to you in our defense that however lax many of us are on RPW violations, many of us are equally lax on doctrinal violations such as Federal Vision, critical theory, evolution, and Side B sexuality.
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
That's like reading a history of the Act of Uniformity and the Great Ejection and thinking, "that was a great idea, and let's apply it to members!" That's a very problematic position that does not take into account very real differences on matters of conscience and practice within the Reformed faith, even among the most confessionalist positions.
I think it depends. Within the scope of a P&R church, yeah that's especially galling. I could not join most credobaptist or shouldn't be able to join confessional Lutheran churches because of significant doctrinal/practice differences, but it's not a statement against Christianity.
Regarding this point, a lot of it has to do with not a question of Worship vs. Reformation Doctrine so much as Worship vs. Nicene Christianity in the 20th Century, with recovery of Reformation doctrine coming first to even have ecclesiastical bodies and then an increasing interest in Reformed worship. It's not that those issues weren't important, it's that a lot of the churches that broke away or came in later themselves needed or still need significant Reformation. In my aggregately 12-14 years in the PCA, I've definitely seen a shift in interest in Reformed worship, including a definite and real uptick in interest in psalmody.
I think you do have a counterweight shift from broadly evangelical approaches to worship (or maybe the stereotypical SBC "traditional" service) towards either a more Anglicanish service (with the heavy and unfortunate emphasis on the calendar including Lent/Advent) or a more Dutch Reformed type liturgy that might have a brief series about the Incarnation and about the death and resurrection on those days but NOT an emphasis among the more confessional types. The strictest Scottish approach is less common but I wouldn't be surprised to see that get an uptick in interest in the coming years, including as a counterweight to the more Anglican side.
The trajectory, as with all trajectories in this world, is somewhat mixed, but I suspect you'll see more serious Reformed worship in doctrinally Reformed churches in the coming years in the aggregate.
Last edited:
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Acceptable Worship - W.C.F.XXI.I
From the WCF chapter XXI paragraph I the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself Yesterday, it was stated that "idolatry" is ____(a list of things)_______. However, worshipping the right God the wrong way was not defined a idolatry. When the question was...
I and many others like me work for reform by joining likeminded churches--often at great personal sacrifice--to increase the numbers of what are currently small denominations, strengthen the witness to the truth to our brethren, have a firm foundation for the generations that come after us, and have a ground to stand upon to instruct the nations in biblical worship.
Last edited:
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
Worship and fellowship, yes. Membership requires a more nuanced view, and would require study of the required membership vows and a reference to the Westminster Standards on lawful oaths and vows.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
There was a time when I was firmly in the "join the best church within driving distance" camp, but my views have changed in recent years. When members of the Associate Presbyterian and Reformed Presbyterian churches moved to the US, many of them refrained from joining the Presbyterian church, despite the fact that they themselves had no officers and no church courts. They instead organized themselves into "societies," worshipped as best as they could without ministers, and sought occasional pulpit supply until ministers could be sent from Scotland and Northern Ireland to constitute presbyteries and organize the societies into churches. I think their approach was the better one.
The unity of the church is a unity in Christ--a unity in the truth. We cannot merely agree to disagree on what the King and Head of the Church has prescribed. To join a church which embraces or protects corruptions in doctrine and practice, and is unwilling to be reformed according to the Word of God, is to seek a unity outside the truth, and outside of Christ. It's an overthrow of the laws of the King.
Now, it may be that in some cases, a church will allow someone to join under protest, and such a person has a duty to use all the means at his disposal to see the corruptions in doctrine and practice reformed. He should renew his protest as able, and only vote for officers that are minded toward reform. If he is an officer, he should work with all his might to see the corruptions reformed. These things are hills to die on. We can't compromise the law of Christ.
Consider that, if someone chooses to join a church which embraces corrupt doctrines and practices, while there is a church with pure doctrine and practice within reasonable distance, he is choosing to financially support and maintain the corrupt, while the purer church may be struggling. Consider the faithful ministers of the Gospel whose congregations are unable to support them full time--those who knowingly decline from joining and supporting such a church, in favor of one that embraces corruptions and resists reform, are culpable.
Also, beware who you submit yourself to as officers in the church. Don't take for granted that, just because they are in office, that they are qualified. If you wouldn't elect them to office, don't elect to subject yourself to them by joining their church. Consider, too, that the unreformable types--those who are indifferent or resistant to being corrected from Scripture--are habitually searing their consciences. You don't want such men as shepherds for your soul; they aren't shepherding their own.
The unity of the church is a unity in Christ--a unity in the truth. We cannot merely agree to disagree on what the King and Head of the Church has prescribed. To join a church which embraces or protects corruptions in doctrine and practice, and is unwilling to be reformed according to the Word of God, is to seek a unity outside the truth, and outside of Christ. It's an overthrow of the laws of the King.
Now, it may be that in some cases, a church will allow someone to join under protest, and such a person has a duty to use all the means at his disposal to see the corruptions in doctrine and practice reformed. He should renew his protest as able, and only vote for officers that are minded toward reform. If he is an officer, he should work with all his might to see the corruptions reformed. These things are hills to die on. We can't compromise the law of Christ.
Consider that, if someone chooses to join a church which embraces corrupt doctrines and practices, while there is a church with pure doctrine and practice within reasonable distance, he is choosing to financially support and maintain the corrupt, while the purer church may be struggling. Consider the faithful ministers of the Gospel whose congregations are unable to support them full time--those who knowingly decline from joining and supporting such a church, in favor of one that embraces corruptions and resists reform, are culpable.
Also, beware who you submit yourself to as officers in the church. Don't take for granted that, just because they are in office, that they are qualified. If you wouldn't elect them to office, don't elect to subject yourself to them by joining their church. Consider, too, that the unreformable types--those who are indifferent or resistant to being corrected from Scripture--are habitually searing their consciences. You don't want such men as shepherds for your soul; they aren't shepherding their own.
Last edited:
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
As regards "societies" such as I mentioned above, to join with such isn't forsaking the assembly of the saints. It's gathering with the mystical body of Christ, irrespective of whether it's a regularly constituted congregation. Obviously, such a society ought to seek to come under presbyterial oversight, be constituted a congregation, etc. But just because you're meeting with likeminded Christians in a home for psalm singing, prayer, and watching or reading a sermon, rather than attending an unreformable but more fully constituted body, doesn't mean you're refusing to gather with the Church.
Edward
Puritanboard Commissioner
So your current position is that one should absent one's self from the ordinary means of grace if there isn't a church that meets a narrow set of particulars in your local area, and withhold one's children from the sacrament of baptism?
(emphasis added)
This seems contra confessional.
WCF: "The purest churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error". You can find churches that are purer in doctrine and practice than mine, but if you think they are pure, then I would suggest you need to be under better teaching.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
No, note how I indicated that they are to use the ordinary means of grace as they can.
As to purity, I'm referring to the official doctrine and the administration of the ordinances. A church can be pure in those respects. Such a church doesn't officially endorse or protect error.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Thanks for your thoughts. A follow up question. Are you talking about churches going against clear teachings, like ordaining homosexuals, promoting sin, etc, or are you talking about churches going against your opinions on secondary issues?
Because every reformed elder I've ever met, desires to embrace and protect the truth of the Bible. It's just that some interpret that differently from others.
There's a big difference from a teacher kicking a Bible like a football off a stage at a church Super bowl party, compared to a reformed Church using grape juice instead of wine.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Hey, brother. What would you consider secondary issues? First Table issues such as how God is to be worshipped and Sabbath keeping are given primary importance in the Scriptures.Thanks for your thoughts. A follow up question. Are you talking about churches going against clear teachings, like ordaining homosexuals, promoting sin, etc, or are you talking about churches going against your opinions on secondary issues?
Because every reformed elder I've ever met, desires to embrace and protect the truth of the Bible. It's just that some interpret that differently from others.
There's a big difference from a teacher kicking a Bible like a football off a stage at a church Super bowl party, compared to a reformed Church using grape juice instead of wine.
Remember, also, that the Scriptures are perspicuous. The right interpretation can be reached through the due use of means. When people stubbornly or lazily cling to false interpretations, it's sin on their part. Of course, there's also human infirmity, which can prevent someone from seeing what God has plainly declared, but in cases like that, folks will be willing to be persuaded.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
My mind has been much on Revelation 2-3. The forbearance of Christ is astounding. He commends what is well, while not sparing what is off; and even then, He speaks in a somewhat understated fashion, with a warm and real invitation back to Himself. Bad as they were, Christ still had His candlesticks there.
Samuel Rutherford, here.
Grant and Jake - thank you both for these excellent quotes and reminders!
Ploutos
Puritan Board Sophomore
Bear in mind that we are not MERELY talking about First Table issues. We are talking about the interpretation and implication of First Table issues. It may be sometimes true but it is often just not the case that a particular church is deliberately setting out to break the first four commandments in its worship. Fidelity to the 9th commandment renders it worthwhile to leave room for charitable judgment here.
First Table issues are given great importance in the Scripture - but primary importance is given to matters of the heart and not to the strictness of ritual adherence. Hence Hezekiah's passover prayer was heard and he effectively interceded for those of the northern tribes who imperfectly partook, and the Lord counted their flawed offering as worthy in his sight. It's not as if adherence to ritual is unimportant in either testament, for Jesus said "these ye ought to have done" - yet he still commended love and mercy and broke bread with those who were "unclean".
Indeed. The faithful in the other six churches were not to move to Philadelphia but reform.
“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), 933.
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
I think, as others have pointed out, that one of the steps/actions missing in your decision making is your obligation to approach your session with regard to these issues. And if you are not satisfied with their response, then formally petition the Church courts. If you petition them and they refuse to reform, only then you can consider what level of separation might be appropriate. Until then, I do not see any way for you to separate at any level. You must use/exhaust the means God has provided. Who knows - perhaps you are in the place you are at and the time you are at in order to be the vehicle for change. Revival and reformation must start somewhere.
In its original context, this was referring to established, national churches, not individual congregations or denominations, so I think we have to be careful how we use this reference to the WCF presently. I'm not sure it presently applies in nations such as the USA. Calvin's view was essentially to stay in the Church, no matter how corrupt, until they kick you out, and then you can start your own faithful branch. But, again, he was speaking in the context of an established national Church. I am not saying that there are not principles in the WCF and the writings of Calvin and others that we can apply to today, but these writings must be read in the context of the ecclesiastical situation they were writing them in.
Yes and no. If they will let you attend and do not deny you the ordinary means of grace, I believe you must tolerate it and cannot separate unless you find a more faithful congregation. Sessions do not make you a member - they recognize you as a member of the Church based on your baptism and profession of faith, and your joining them at the Lord's Table is evidence of that recognition. I believe if they heap additional requirements onto that for "membership" then they are going beyond their authority - as A.A Hodge is put it: "A Church has no right to make anything a condition of membership which Christ has not made a condition of salvation." (The Westminster Confession of Faith: A Commentary, "A Short History of the Creeds and Confessions")
Last edited:
Polanus1561
Puritan Board Senior
Mods, I suggest pausing this thread and the other one for the LORD's day.
So...how do we square all the great Presbyterian arguments against separation and the calls for unity with the fact that most (if not all) of us are in denominations (ARP, PCA, OPC, etc.) that only exist because some group separated/seceded at some point? Had the PCUSA and the Church of Scotland become false churches and so corrupt that they were not worth staying in and working for reform?
And...by the way...I agree with the arguments against separation (Durham, Rutherford, etc.)...I'm just trying to square those with the actual history of the Presbyterian church.
And...by the way...I agree with the arguments against separation (Durham, Rutherford, etc.)...I'm just trying to square those with the actual history of the Presbyterian church.
Last edited:
Northern Crofter
Puritan Board Junior
One answer I'm sure you will hear is that multiple Churches (RPoS, FCoS, FCoSC, ARP, FPCoS) in Scotland lay claim to being the original, continuing CoS. Thus some will question the PCUSA being a legitimate (true) branch from the beginning. These charts might help make sense of that argument:
Church of Scotland chart and US Pres. chart
Similar threads
