W.G.T. Shedd On Church Officer vs. Church Member Subscription

I am re-reading W.G.T. Shedd’s “Calvinism: Pure and Mixed” in preparation for the ARP General Synod and came upon this quote from Shedd on the misunderstood differences between an Officer and a lay Member’s requirements regarding subscription to the Confession.

(I especially love the example at the end that Shedd uses to illustrate this point):

“There is sometimes misconception on this point. We have seen it stated that the members of the Presbyterian Church are not required or expected to hold the same doctrine with the officers; that is with the Pastor, Elders, or Deacons who must accept the Confession of Faith ‘as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures’, but that the congregation need not. But this error arises from confounding the toleration of a deficiency with the endorsement of it. Because a church session tolerates in a particular person, who gives evidence of faith in Christ, an error respecting foreordination, or even some abstruse point in the Trinity, or in the incarnation, it does not thereby endorse the error. It does not sanction his opinion on these subjects, but only endures it, in view of his religious experience on the vital points of faith and repentance, and with the hope that his subsequent growth in knowledge will bring him to the final rejection of it. The Presbyterian Church tolerates theatre-going in some of its members; that is to say, it does not discipline them for it. But it does not formally approve and sanction theatre-going. A proposition to revise the Confession by inserting a clause to this effect, in order to meet the wishes and practice of the minority of theatre-going members, would be voted down by the presbyteries.” — W.G.T. Shedd, “Calvinism: Pure and Mixed” pg. 9

More News From Erskine

Read the new ARP Talk to hear more on the massive mess Erskine Seminary has become…

John Calvin On Baptism

“But the fanatics, such as Schuencfeldius, absurdly pervert this testimony, while they seek to take away from sacraments all their power and effect. For Peter did not mean here to teach that Christ’s institution is vain and inefficacious, but only to exclude hypocrites from the hope of salvation, who, as far as they can, deprave and corrupt baptism. Moreover, when we speak of sacraments, two things are to be considered, the sign and the thing itself. In baptism the sign is water, but the thing is the washing of the soul by the blood of Christ and the mortifying of the flesh. The institution of Christ includes these two things. Now that the sign appears often inefficacious and fruitless, this happens through the abuse of men, which does not take away the nature of the sacrament. Let us then learn not to tear away the thing signified from the sign. We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit. They do not regard Christ as the only author of all the blessings therein offered to us; they transfer the glory of his death to the water, they tie the secret power of the Spirit to the visible sign.
What then ought we to do? Not to separate what has been joined together by the Lord. We ought to acknowledge in baptism a spiritual washing, we ought to embrace therein the testimony of the remission of sin and the pledge of our renovation, and yet so as to leave to Christ his own honor, and also to the Holy Spirit; so that no part of our salvation should be transferred to the sign. Doubtless when Peter, having mentioned baptism, immediately made this exception, that it is not the putting off of the filth of the flesh, he sufficiently shewed that baptism to some is only the outward act, and that the outward sign of itself avails nothing.”

From His Commentary on 1 Peter 3:21

Civil Unrest in England and America

As someone who spent a good bit of his academic career studying medieval eastern European history it is interesting to watch the events unfolding in England currently and Greece and France more recently. There is much being written concerning what these riots tell us about the moral fiber of the youth in these countries whom we are told make-up the majority of protesters. Even more so some express shock at the pictures and video of children as young as 5 and 6 being intimately involved in the violence.

It is also interesting to hear the shock and awe of those who seem to forget that the underclasses of Britain have engaged in similar behavior over the years and most of the time have done so with greater bravado. However what makes this particular sort of riot fascinating is the things for which the underclass is showing their displeasure. Unlike previous generations that fought for equal protection under the law, safe working conditions, and other reasonable things like voting rights what we see these youths fighting for is the right to accumulate more and more stuff. Materialism is their beef. They destroy the shops of small business owners (who the rioters ignorantly associate with the “rich”) not because they are unable to feed their children or are not interested in working for a pittance at the local coal mine but because they want a larger plasma TV than the one they currently own or a better, more flashy smart phone with a free data plan. You will hear various commentators with quite a deep loquaciousness ponder about the ravaging effects of capitalism and the “rich bankers” that forced these unemployed young men and women to lash out in rage. Notice if you will the dress of the rioters caught on camera. An inquiring eye will notice the delinquents flashing name brand clothing (most of what I have seen have been various types of Adidas track suits and training gear) and non-Payless shoe brands. It is hardly a revolution of the “poor and downtrodden”.

What makes this particular rioting even more interesting is when you juxtapose it with situation in Somalia. In one western country we have people who receive a regular check and free healthcare from the central government destroying private property and attacking police with abandon, in the other eastern African nation a man-made drought in an anarchic land with thousands dying from hunger.

Western society as it stands today is an interesting contrast between the money of the Industrialists and Capitalists which gave Western society its current standard of life and the governments in these nations which are being run by the Social Scientists and the Keynesians. This has given us a society which expects the rich to fund the lifestyles of the poor.  What does this have to do with the current situation in the old country? The writers from the political right are correct to note the spoiled and arrogant nature of the rioters in England and the lack of proper child-rearing and education being the culprit. However what is even more to blame is a culture that is at once both self-centered and self-deceptive. We teach our youngsters that the primary purpose of hard work is to gain a better standing in society through the accumulation of stuff, stuff primarily  geared towards our own personal entertainment (which is a problem in and of itself).  In other words the purpose of gaining wealth is to further ensure our isolationism from the outside world.  This is a curious goal for us to work towards.

Happy 148th Birthday West Virginia

Biblical Charity

Biblical Charity

By Rev. Benjamin P. Glaser, Pastor, Ellisville Presbyterian Church (Independent)

It is often said of political conservatives that they favor the business class over and against the poor. On the other hand political liberals are often charged with playing “Robin Hood” with the money of the rich by using the government system of taxation to redistribute wealth to the poor and needy. In this short article today I want to begin to develop an answer that will say that both of these caricatures have much truth to them, yet they both have at their base the asking of the wrong questions of the people in the focus of the critiques.

In Amos 8:5 God speaks to the Israelites concerning their practice of falsifying the scales used to measure grain for purchase. In other words the Israelites were changing the scales so that the person buying the grain would actually pay more for less product. This ensured the Israelite selling the product that he would receive a higher profit for less goods and services. In God’s Law (Leviticus 19:36) this practice is condemned. The question of course is why did God make this practice illegal? Well He did so because He knew the natural inclination of the heart of man would be to take advantage of the poor. Likewise Jesus spoke to the disciples that the poor would always be with us (Mark 14:7, Deuteronomy 15:11). So God in His Wisdom provided certain outlets for them to be taken care of at this time (Exodus 23:11, Deut 14:28-29, and Deut 15:7-11 are but a few examples).

What we see in these two examples is that God both rejects unjust business practices and unmerited taxation as solutions to solving the problems of poverty, but calls upon true Biblical Charity as the answer to the question.