So...if I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that Williamson would be at odds with Rutherford, but not Durham...right?
And, yes, it was 1964.
Refusal to gather as the greater sin?
- Thread starter CGS
- Start date
- Status
And, yes, it was 1964.
I'm entirely sure; if he would allow moving churches within a state church under the scenario Durham grants, then by analogy perhaps all would be in agreement. Rutherford is arguing against separatists and congregationalists and trying to close all the doors; that is fueling his polemic; while Durham is arguing similarly from unity and the sin of schism, it makes it all the more relevant that he grants a relief in an odious situation to move parishes as far as attendance. So in a non state church situation we are left trying to analogize and apply what they are saying. Durham's argument is for those who grieved that someone was taking communion they believed should not be or a minister administering who should not be due to lax discipline, that if one could not tolerate such a thing, to just go across parish (in an orderly manner).
Hi Chris. They had to apply it during the resolutioner/protester controversy. It would be an interesting study to learn how far Rutherford followed out his own principles.
It would. If they weren't too busy trying to get the other in trouble with the civil authorities; one side throwing in their lot with the king's heir (the Malignants) and the other with Cromwell (the sectaries); both contrary to the principles of the covenant. Strange what politics will do. The period doesn't wear well for many; Durham, Blair, not many stand above the stink. Kyle Holfelder's study will take the rose colored glasses away that many have about the period.
Last edited:
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I personally find James Durham entirely relevant. While the Protesters and Resolutioners were tearing each other up over the right course of action, James Durham understood that unless true heart unity were present, it didn't matter who came out on top. We are not in an establishment situation for sure, but so far as I know none of the churches in Revelation were established either. Nor were Thessalonica, Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, etc. Rutherford and Durham didn't found everything on whether a nation is established--they started with what Scripture had to say on the unity of churches. Edit: Even if we are not institutionally of the same denomination, the health of those in other denominations must still be very dear and important to us. After all, are they not Christ's brothers and sisters too? I think this is the very attitude of Scripture.
Then, brother, they are reformable. Christ died for His bride, the church, so that she would be "without spot or wrinkle." And indeed, none of the churches today look so as irreformable as did Corinth, or five of the seven churches of Revelation. But the Gospel we are studying to preach says that nothing is impossible for God. And if they are in covenant with Him, He has a special interest in their sanctification. Why? Because those who believe the Gospel--whether Baptist or else--are His bride.
Perhaps the mechanisms for a much more full reformation may not be in place, but that's nothing compared to the blackness of our hearts that once existed. We were once unbelieving children of the devil. Now who are we?
And if we think it's going too slow, well, it took God 1,500 years to get fed up with the Jews.
I recently did a study on Durham in the midst of the Protester-Resolutioner controversy. He is the voice needed for today.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
I would love to hear more. I downloaded Holfelder's thesis. I was unprepared for 300 + pages; I thought it would be 60 or so and I would read it today hahaha
I first became interested in this period of history after finishing Durham's "Heaven on Earth" sermon series from @NaphtaliPress 's edition of his collected sermons.
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Any recommendations on a good starting point for him on this topic?
I didn't mean that Durham isn't entirely relevant. However he probably could not have imagined the disarray the visible church is in in our day.
I've seen severable appeals to Christ's words to the 7 churches, but isn't the point that he did take away their candlesticks because they were not reformable? Yes Christ died for his church and the invisible church is and will be without spot and wrinkle, but the visible church is the problem being addressed, and in some of it even true churches, Reformed churches, are unnwilling to reform. I see it with my own eyes here in Birmingham, a bastion of the PCA. Christmas, advent, 2nd commandment violations, Sabbath-keeping not taught and upheld.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I would say, remember Judah. Nothing in the PCA is as bad as Judah was at points, and the Jews had a covenant that was weak compared to our own. Will write more at another time if possible.
Edit: And still, there is no disarray like that in our hearts pre-conversion.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I agree with this. What I mean by unreformable is that they refuse to be reformed. Given a spiritual awakening, I could see it happening, but as it is you can scarcely expect to even get ordained as an exclusive psalmodist in some of these denominations. They tend to be much more exclusive in practice than on paper.
My comments on this thread are about practice, not pure theory.
I agree. And could it also be that in some cases it's not necessarily a refusal to reform, but rather a total lack of awareness that reform is even needed due to ignorance of the RPW (or that such a thing as the RPW even exists)? I have known elders - good men who loved the Lord, His church and His Word - that had little to no understanding of the RPW.
There has been considerable witness to the regulative principle of worship by conservatives in the PCA; witness those taking part in the Spirit & Truth movie several years back (Dr. Pipa, etc.). But they simply disagree with the argument for Exclusive Psalmody. This is not intransigence; but a difference of view. Happily Dr. Pipa and others are for a lot of psalmody. I don't think it would be so much you could not get ordained an EP in the PCA but finding a call looking for an EP minister in the PCA. My old church was one of the few EPs in the 1990s when the church was part of the PCA and the pastor had no problem getting ordained by what was then a far worse presbytery than today as far as animosity toward stricter confessional types. The PCA has improved over the decades (charismatics, Arminians in the beginning) even as it has significant battles still with the progressive wing (which will continue because the recent 'wins' are not enough).
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
Granting all of this, a man won't be ordained without a call from a congregation. The PCA doesn't want EP ministers. If they did, there would be churches to call them.
Not right now; but I'm saying it is not impossible for there to be EP congregations however difficult; just as with Sabbatarian ones in a denomination that is effectively antiSabbatarian though you'll find Sabbatarians and Sabbatarian churches particularly with the influence of GPTS and also PRTS.
What I detect from some of the comments on this thread, and others across the PB, is that there seems to be a significant level of frustration among some of us with the fact that many of our Reformed churches don’t always act or look like Reformed churches. We know our churches aren’t false or apostate churches, not even close. We love our churches, our fellow brothers and sisters, our elders, and our pastors. We have no desire whatsoever to separate. We just have a very strong desire to see a return to purer worship practices. We see no appetite for reform (for whatever reason) from our leaders. We feel as if our hands are tied…we know we are in a very small minority and that there is little we can do to work for reform, especially if we are not officers of the church. We grieve over these issues, and pray, and plead with the Lord to bring reform.
Speaking only for myself, I can even say that the level of frustration can at times diminish my enthusiasm for corporate worship or become a distraction during worship. I can’t help but wonder how God can be pleased with our worship, or if we are worshipping in vain? The words of our Lord often come to mind during worship: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (I understand from the discussion on the other thread that I can individually refrain from participating in RPW violations and therefore not grieve my conscience, but shouldn’t I still be concerned about what those around me are doing? I am part of a body, not just an individual.)
So…For those of us who feel this frustration and grieve over purity of worship issues, what advice can you provide for how to properly deal with this frustration?
Speaking only for myself, I can even say that the level of frustration can at times diminish my enthusiasm for corporate worship or become a distraction during worship. I can’t help but wonder how God can be pleased with our worship, or if we are worshipping in vain? The words of our Lord often come to mind during worship: “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (I understand from the discussion on the other thread that I can individually refrain from participating in RPW violations and therefore not grieve my conscience, but shouldn’t I still be concerned about what those around me are doing? I am part of a body, not just an individual.)
So…For those of us who feel this frustration and grieve over purity of worship issues, what advice can you provide for how to properly deal with this frustration?
Pray for patience as you do for faithfulness and diligence in your place and station to do what you can to bring reform. In my church's presbytery LPC may be an aberration. It takes a long time to reform if you don't have a congregation already on board (as was the case with my prior church). We just had the reigns handed from the pastor whose been here forty years (my late sister's husband Arnie) to a new man whose committed to retain the progress we've made. Following the movement of the 1990s to sing more psalms we sing over both morning and evening services 75% Psalms (50/50 AM; 100% PM) and a third of the verses/stanzas acapella in the AM 100% in the PM; I'm working with the Arnie on a revision our own psalter we produced in 2017 so it is as tight to the Hebrew as possibly can be. The congregation is growing on typical problem areas (Sabbath keeping) and as we look to elect a new RE I hear he takes no exceptions typical in the PCA to the PCA's version of the Westminster Standards. All this takes a long time in a denomination like the PCA. Patience and commitment are required.
Dr. Wright (continuator of Matthew Henry on James) had this interesting observation from James 3:
"Nay, perhaps their magisterial deportment, and censorious tongues, may prove worse than any faults they condemn in others."
A deep sense of our own sinfulness, the ways we ourselves fail, including in worship, is often a good preservative against the kind of frustration and impatience that is a genuine engine of schism. The reality is that some who are less informed or less consistent about some matters, may be genuinely far ahead of us in the fruit of the Spirit. The resolution of this tension is not to give up a conviction based on Scripture (unless we detect a hermeneutical flaw), but to add conviction about the importance of other matters as well, and to bear in mind that we all exist under a staggering display of patience on God's part.
thegoadfather
Puritan Board Freshman
I know of a man who could not get ordained in the PCA (at least the presbytery his congregation was apart of) and he was called a wolf for expressing his convictions about EP and the establishment principle.
Edit: I must confess that I know this only from the man and his wife, I was not there at the time. But I have no reason to doubt their word.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
When I was a in the PCA, a sympathetic pastor told me that my presbytery would laugh at me if I told them I was EP.
He also told me that a man was once accused of being a liar on the floor of our presbytery because he said he took no exceptions to the Westminster Standards. He was told that everyone takes exceptions, and that he needs to come out be honest about it.
Those statements were both in the context of me asking about coming under care of presbytery. Not long after that, I asked my session about joining the FCC to pursue the ministry there instead. They thought it sounded like a good idea. The rest is history.
Last edited:
I would want to know what was said but there are extreme anti EP folk out there, so I have no reason to think it couldn't have happened; but regardless of the subject, accusations of being a wolf should have been called out by other presbyters. I do know that non EP no exceptions takers have been scoffed at; it is common; but that is the anticonfessional element of the PCA. I would be surprised if an EP were mistreated so by some of the stronger confessional presbyteries. They may think an EP out of place but would not be mean about it.
thegoadfather
Puritan Board Freshman
I will talk with the man and see if I can get a more exact statement or I can have him get in touch with you. I assumed this is only to be found in some of the presbyteries seeing as you are a member in the PCA, but considering your comment I at least wanted to put it out there that some presbyteries may be unwilling to ordain such men.
There's no reason to have anyone get in touch on the matter; I'm no authority that has to sit in judgment on the situation. The PCA is and will become more bulkanized as the progressives and conservatives continue to fight it out.
thegoadfather
Puritan Board Freshman
I apologize, I took this as meaning you wanted to know exactly what went down.
Theoretical
Puritan Board Professor
Having observed a few candidating question sessions at several presbyteries strictly as a lay visitor, I can see a conservative/confessional argument for the skepticism in a setting that permits exceptions. I remember seeing one candidate represent himself as taking no exceptions to the standards, but when he was asked certain practical theological questions, his actual answers reflected at best inconsistencies and at worst stealth exceptions. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if "fingers crossed" no exceptions became an approach some less honorable progressives or broad types might do in stricter presbyteries. The other angle would be someone not really having read the larger catechism enough to realize it's got a bunch of specificity they might actually have to think about, since Shorter is the one for the memorization requirement.
I have also heard some straight up and clear exceptions, that while I don't like them at least don't give me any pause as to other positions or what's lurking since it's straightforward and clear what the man believes.
Thinking about how one might approach that as a sharply confessional candidate where skepticism has been expressed in the past to such candidates is to either intentionally volunteer positions on issues where exceptions are usually taken (as affirmative position papers of sorts) or to ask another TE or RE to intentionally ask you questions on whatever the standard menu of exceptions is for that presbytery. I.e. please explain your views on images and the 2nd commandment, please explain your views on psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, please explain your views on WLC 109, please state your position on WLC 119, or the like.
It's not ideal, and "no exceptions" when one is clearly confessional should be taken on face value, but if the "no exceptions" is itself looked at or treated as an exception in a given presbytery, then this might be worth a look.
Last edited:
To pass any opinion I would want to know both sides; but I don't need to render an opinion.
I would begin with the entry on James Durham in Scots' Worthies, ed. by Carslaw.
The Scots worthies, revised by W.H. Carlaw
www.google.com.au
It contains an editor's footnote on pp. 227-230 which goes to the heart of Durham's work.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
Time is limited so I can't say all I want to, but thoughts.
The references to Durham in Holfelder's work are scattered. But in short, while men were tearing each other to pieces, Durham understood that in a contentious atmosphere there is no way the body of Christ was going to be edified. Sure, the correct side could theoretically triumph, but if they pursue it with carnal and contentious carriage coupled with political maneuverings, they'll at best gain an outward compliance; but the heart unity required to assure the staying power of the right position is lost. I listed some resources below.
@MW has cited John Howie, whose "Scots Worthies" I thinks breathes the Protestor spirit. Howie notes that Durham indeed had the respect of men of both sides. As an instance, at one point the split assemblies both wanted him as their Moderator. Durham held out until they agreed to join into one assembly. They complied.
Durham's work "Concerning Scandal" is the chief work. It addresses four classes of scandals, with division being the last one. This is the most relevant one. Naphtali Press edition has a good overview of the controversy of his times, as well as a foreword by Durham's fellow "middleman" Robert Blair. In "Scandal" Durham clearly has the Protester-Resolutioner controversy in mind, although he refrains from naming it, or declaring any side in the controversy, for fear that one side or the other would use his alignment as an excuse to disregard him.
With Scandal, you might read Durham on the church at Pergamos. The scandal caused by the Nicolatians in their eating and drinking prompted "Scandal." Edit: But I can sum it up this way. Eating and drinking of meats sacrificed to idols was lawful, but the Nicolatians earned the rebuke of Christ for their lack of concern for distressed consciences and weaker brothers. The connection to Durham's "Scandal" is, we must be careful that good causes are not carried out in a scandalous fashion.
Also, Durham's sermon on Ephesians 4:11-12. Clear address to the P/R controversy.
The references to Durham in Holfelder's work are scattered. But in short, while men were tearing each other to pieces, Durham understood that in a contentious atmosphere there is no way the body of Christ was going to be edified. Sure, the correct side could theoretically triumph, but if they pursue it with carnal and contentious carriage coupled with political maneuverings, they'll at best gain an outward compliance; but the heart unity required to assure the staying power of the right position is lost. I listed some resources below.
@MW has cited John Howie, whose "Scots Worthies" I thinks breathes the Protestor spirit. Howie notes that Durham indeed had the respect of men of both sides. As an instance, at one point the split assemblies both wanted him as their Moderator. Durham held out until they agreed to join into one assembly. They complied.
Durham's work "Concerning Scandal" is the chief work. It addresses four classes of scandals, with division being the last one. This is the most relevant one. Naphtali Press edition has a good overview of the controversy of his times, as well as a foreword by Durham's fellow "middleman" Robert Blair. In "Scandal" Durham clearly has the Protester-Resolutioner controversy in mind, although he refrains from naming it, or declaring any side in the controversy, for fear that one side or the other would use his alignment as an excuse to disregard him.
With Scandal, you might read Durham on the church at Pergamos. The scandal caused by the Nicolatians in their eating and drinking prompted "Scandal." Edit: But I can sum it up this way. Eating and drinking of meats sacrificed to idols was lawful, but the Nicolatians earned the rebuke of Christ for their lack of concern for distressed consciences and weaker brothers. The connection to Durham's "Scandal" is, we must be careful that good causes are not carried out in a scandalous fashion.
Also, Durham's sermon on Ephesians 4:11-12. Clear address to the P/R controversy.
Last edited:
No Other Name
Puritan Board Sophomore
I see that with your mind, time is no respecter of alliterative stylings. Hahahahaha
Thank you for your thoughts.
At the risk of over simplifying, would it be fair to say that the disagreements in the P/R controversy were much more about political/civil issues rather than spiritual issues, i.e. they weren't arguing about doctrinal issues or purity of worship issues? I do understand that spiritual issues were involved such as the peace and unity of the church, but the primary issue that started it all seems to be more political. Is this correct? I haven't fully studied the history of it, but that is the sense I'm getting from some of the comments here in the thread and what little I have read thus far.
The church and state were too close; both Baillie and Blair complained ministers meddled too much in civil affairs; policy decisions could not be made without the church's blessing; the ministers on the protester side at least, were using Gideon's army as a precept to keep purging the army of those too aligned with the King, etc.; which certainly was a factor in their loss to Cromwell; troops had to be pure followers of the covenant only. The country could not be defended simply by every able body.
- Status
Similar threads
