PURITAN NEWS WEEKLY

www.puritans.net/news/

03/08/10

 

 

THE DECLARATORY ACT AND THE FREE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF SCOTLAND

 

 

By J. Parnell McCarter

 

The FCC has a helpful article at http://www.freechurchseminary.org/Christian%20Unity%202.html that says this about the Declaratory Act:

 

"The majority of the Original Seceders and the Reformed Presbyterians joined the Free Church (FC). Two others of the Secession churches formed the United Presbyterians (UPs). Then at the end of the 19th Century there was a move for the UPs to join the FC. But the UPs were weaker in their Calvinism and wanted no contact with state while the FC believed in the Establishment Principle. Liberalism had weakened both churches. To facilitate union a Declaratory Act was passed in the FC in 1892. This allowed freedom for the individual minister in subscription to Confession of Faith. It demanded adherence only in the matters which entered into the “substance of the faith” and this was not defined. Basically ministers and elders could believe what they liked.   The idea was that coming together as churches is good whatever people believe. Church leaders must find forms of words that suit everyone. They saw strength in numbers and in their pride viewed themselves as competing numerically with the Church of Scotland. So at last the union took place in 1900. Truth was downplayed. The Free Presbyterian Church was formed in protest against the Declaratory Act (1892) in1893 and a minority stayed out of the Union of 1900 and continued to claim that they were the Free Church."

 

 

My view of church affiliation, found at http://www.puritans.net/news/biblicalrealism021207.htm , is this:

 

"So long as there is full subscription to the Biblical standards outlined in the original Westminster Standards and a reasonably good faith effort on the part of the church assembly to implement those standards, we should seek to be united to such a denominational church.  On the other hand, we ought not to join ourselves with churches that do not fully subscribe to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards.  And we ought not to join with denominations schismatically formed, when there was already a denomination which fully subscribed to the Biblical standards outlined in the original Westminster Standards and there was a reasonably good faith effort on the part of the church assembly to implement those standards.  We ought not to aid and abet schism in the visible church of Christ in our church membership."

 

When the FC passed the Declaratory Act (see article at http://www.puritans.net/bookreviewseconddisruption.htm for fuller detail on the passing of the Declaratory Act), it ceased fully to subscribe to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the original Westminster Standards, so it was correct not to be joined to her.   It is not enough simply to have the Westminster Standards as one’s constitution but without full subscription, because it leaves the door wide open to church officers who disagree with the Westminster Standards, who are not qualified to be church officers, and thus thoroughly undermines the Church's proper role as "pillar of truth" in the world (I Timothy 3:15).  Indeed, having the Westminster Standards as one’s constitution but with a loose form of subscription to those standards can be as meaningless as not having the Westminster Standards at all.  A confession without full subscription is quite inadequate; both full subscription and true confessional standards must be factors in determining proper church affiliation.

 

Therefore, it was right and proper for the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS) to be formed in protest of the Declaratory Act, and to maintain the separate existence of a body fully subscribed to the original Westminster Standards.  Once justifiably formed, Christians have had a duty since then to be joined with the FPCS, and not to create separate denominations when the FPCS already existed.  That goes for the WPCUS, Presbyterian Reformed, and Free Church Continuing (FCC) denominations, as well as other denominations.  The reality in all too many cases is that these other denominations were formed because they did not like the strictness of the FPCS on such issues as Sabbath public transport, modesty of attire, movie entertainment, etc.  But those are not valid substantive grounds for the creation of separate denominations.  Indeed, the FPCS’s strict posture on these issues is generally correct (indeed, the FPCS would ideally go further in its strictness on a number of matters), making the creation of separate denominations doubly unjustified.

 

The unjustifiable basis of creation, and the weak foundation which underlay it, keeps coming back to haunt denominations subsequently created.  We are witnessing this very thing in the structural weaknesses of Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary and its participating denominations, where various erroneous views (critical text view, denial of literal 6-day creation, etc.) are tolerated among the professors at PRTS (see http://www.puritans.net/news/prts111909.htm .) 

 

It is important that churches and seminaries not succumb to the Declaratory Act siren song.