THE REFORMATION PARTY
( WWW.PURITANS.NET )
1. Why does the Reformation Party not believe in allowing everyone to vote and hold office, rather than just the members of a particular church?
Ruling a nation, like ruling a church, is a privilege, not a right. It is a privilege which God says should be invested in those who fear the Lord and are living in obedience to the principles summarized in the Ten Commandments (at least insofar as we can tell from outward observance). Those who vote and hold office are those who rule political parties, nations, and churches. So it is appropriate that only those who are communicant members of a particular church (or denomination) should be allowed to vote and hold office. It is not a privilege that should be accorded to those who are committing the sin of schism, or heresy, or infidelity. Nor is it a privilege that should be accorded to those insufficiently educated in the reformed Biblical faith. Those who rule should be of sound doctrinal understanding and belief, so they can make wise and proper decisions, in conformity to God’s revealed will. While at this point in time the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland merely has mission works in nations other than Scotland, it is important that from the start of the political party that its voting members only be from a particular denomination, as entailed by the Establishment principle itself. Of course, as a practical matter, by the time a civil magistrate actually would recognize the church in any particular nation, the mission work in a particular nation would have to develop into its own national assembly, separate from the national assemblies in other nations, though of the same denomination.
2. But should not the members of churches so close as the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland Continuing come together in a political party like the Reformation Party?
That is to ask the wrong question. The question should rather be asked: given how God commands visible church unity, why do the members of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland and the Free Church of Scotland Continuing remain in separate denominations, perpetuating schism that God is so displeased with? The answer is not to try to paper over this schism by forming political parties of multiple denominations. Rather, the answer is to address the underlying problem: schismatic denominations.
3. So which denominations are schismatic, and why?
Denominations are schismatic which had no moral right to be created as separate denominations in the first place, because there was already existing at the time a denomination which should have been joined. The right denomination is that denomination which fully subscribes to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the Westminster Standards and is making a reasonably good faith effort to implement those standards. For example, those denominations which constitutionally do not require full subscriptionism to the doctrines of the original Westminster Standards are schismatic, as are those which allow member churches to incorporate musical instruments, uninspired hymns, pagan holy days, etc. And as are those which deny infant baptism, predestination and the doctrines of grace, historicism, the regulative principle of worship, the Establishment Principle, obedience to the civil rulers that be (insofar as they do not require things unlawful), presbyterian church government, Christian Sabbath observance, etc.
4. So which people are guilty of committing the sin of schism, thus disqualifying themselves from the right to rule, until they repent of the sin?
Those people who join schismatic denominations, thus perpetuating schism in Christ’s visible church. While many such may not be willfully sinning, and there are surely many genuine believers in other denominations, nevertheless they should be encouraged to correct their error. The error should not be coddled for purposes of some political objectives.
5. So are you then saying all who are not communicant members of a particular denomination should in theory be outlawed by the state?
No, not at all. Obviously a large body of the population should not be communicant members because they either are of insufficient age and maturity and/or have not been yet sufficiently catechized in the doctrines of the reformed faith. But that does not mean these people should be outlawed. And civil rulers should be patient with people’s ignorance and infirmities. While civil rulers should be zealous for the law, they must also be zealous for mercy, and longsuffering, even as God is. Nehemiah was a good example of a ruler who implemented progressively, and not all at once. And Jesus Christ is the supreme example of one who patiently bears with the weaknesses and ignorance of a people.
We must distinguish then between the privilege of voting from the right of inhabitation of a country, a distinction that even the modern US retains. People under 18 years of age are not outlawed, though they are not accorded the privilege of voting. And those who disagree with the anti-Establishment Principle tenets of the US Constitution are in many respects disenfranchised in the US.
7. But why should a church only in Scotland be considered the denomination of voting members of the Reformation Party?
Actually, the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has churches in virtually every continent of the world, save South America. For instance, there are probably more members of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland in Zimbabwe in Africa than there are in Scotland.
8. Is not voting for the Reformation opting out?
The word of God gives us principles by which to determine who is worthy to rule, and only those who are of sound religion (ie, those who agree with the Biblical doctrines summarized in the Westminster Standards) should rule. It is not ultimately determined numbers of people. We should vote based upon principles from the Word of God, and leave it to God to move the hearts of men.
Similarly, we should not choose our church based upon number of members, but based upon the principles of the Word of God. God will add the numbers when He so chooses.
9. But I can hardly believe that the framers of the Confession were so intolerant as to mean to exclude from any office of state all those who differed from them on any religious matter?
Well, as hard as you may find it to believe, it is an historical fact. It was not until around the last 200-250 years that those outside the membership of an established church in a particular state were allowed to vote or hold office. For example, it was not until around 1828 that those outside the established Church of England could vote in England. This was true in Scotland with the Presbyterian church as well, and in Puritan New England, and in Calvin's Geneva, etc. Membership in the established church was requisite for voting and holding civil office. And membership in the established church was only allowed those who agreed with the church's confessional standards. When the Westminster divines wrote the Westminster Confession, they wrote it with that in mind.
The Solemn League and Covenant, which precipitated the convening of the Westminster Assembly, states this end:
“II. That we shall, in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavour the extirpation of Popery, Prelacy (that is, Church government by archbishops, bishops, their chancellors and commissioners, deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons, and all other ecclesiastical officers depending on that hierarchy), superstition, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatsoever shall be found contrary to sound doctrine and the power of Godliness; lest we partake in other men's sins, and thereby be in danger to receive of their plagues; and that the Lord may be one, and his name one, in the three kingdoms. “
Notice above that the goal was to extirpate from the United Kingdom “schism” and that which was “contrary to sound doctrine” (as they defined in the Westminster Standards). By schism they meant anything that would divide from the established Presbyterian church, including the Baptist error. The Baptist error certainly causes schism in Christ's visible church, because Baptists refuse to join with established reformed churches, for at least 3 reasons:
- They reject infant baptism.
- They reject the Establishment Principle.
- The reject presbyterian church govt, because Baptists believe in independent church govt.
They thus rend Christ's visible church, and they are opposed to precisely was intended to be set up by the Solemn League and Covenant and the Westminster Assembly.
This is certainly not to say there are no genuine Christians among Baptists. But it is to say all historical evidence indicates it was the intention of the Westminster Assembly that they not be allowed to vote or rule in civil government, and it is the testimony of scripture that those who refused to circumcise their infant seed be suppressed and not allowed to rule in ancient Israel, even as those who now refuse to baptize their infant seed should not be allowed to rule.
10. How can I learn more about the Reformation Party’s political philosophy with regards to political alliances?
The following resource at http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieForbiddenAlliances.htm is commended for your study: “Forbidden Alliances: Concerning Associations and Confederacies with Idolaters, Infidels, Heretics, or Any Other Known Enemies of Truth and Godliness” .by Rev. George Gillespie.
11. How can then I now help out the Reformation Party?
Here are some suggestions:
1. Email info@puritans.net and indicate you would like to be a member (either as an associate non-voting member or a voting member).
2. If you are not joined to the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, then work towards that goal, so you can be a voting member of the Reformation Party.
3. Tell others about the Reformation Party.
Until the Reformation Party has at least 10 voting members, it will not be electing Party officers, or conducting Party business (other than what is now shown at this website).
Back to the Home Page of The Reformation
Party