THE PILLAR OF TRUTH
I have recently been in discussions with some in the RPCNA
regarding denominational affiliation.
One very practical question each of us should ask is whether we should
join a church body with an erroneous confession of faith and a faulty manner of
confessional subscription and seek to improve the situation in it, or whether
we should join a church body with a true confession of faith and full
confessional subscription to it. The
scripture is not silent on this question, for it asserts that the church is assigned
the role of “pillar of truth” (I Timothy
I have heard some object that my position is contrary to the
writings of theologians such as
" The first crucial juncture was when the majority of ministers (i.e., the
Resolutioners) forsook the Covenants that they had
solemnly vowed to uphold and, thus also, when they scornfully abandoned the
true Church of Scotland (i.e., the Protesters, who were led by Samuel
Rutherford, Patrick Gillespie, James Guthrie, Hugh Binning, James Fergusson
[N.B. the quote on the "Ye who love the Lord, hate evil" booklet] and
21 other Covenanters). The covenant-breaking of the Resolutioners, their tyrannical deposing of sound and godly
Covenanter (i.e., Protester) ministers, and also their hostile and vitriolic
attacks against the genuine Church of Scotland (again, the Protesters); led
Samuel Rutherford and the other Covenanters correctly to call the Resolutioners "a pretended assembly." In
addition, viewing the wicked compromise, defection, and tolerationist
policies of the Resolutioners; Samuel Rutherford and
the other Protesters tearfully prayed for the salvation of the
covenant-breaking Resolutioners."
I personally agree with James Durham's conduct in this controversy more than
"In the divisions which took place between the resolutioners
and protesters, Mr Durham took neither side. When the
two parties in the synod of
My interpretation of James Durham is that he believed so long as a church
adhered to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the Westminster Standards and
reasonably sought to implement those standards, one should not separate. I
think Samuel Rutherford believed the same, but at different points in his life
gave more or less leeway and patience, depending upon historical context.
In THE DYING MAN’S TESTAMENT TO THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND: THE SCANDAL OF DIVISION
AMONG THE GODLY by James Durham, he writes:
"An orthodox Church divided in itself in some circumstantial truths (to
speak so) or contrary practices and actings, when
still agreeing in the fundamentals of doctrine, worship, discipline and
government, and having mutual esteem of the integrity one of another, what, I
say, such are called to do for the healing of that breach?"
According to context,
So my overall interpretation of
I have heard some rebut that the public worship in the RPCNA is adequate to
join. Regarding the liturgy and public
worship of RPCNA churches, here are a sample of issues that come to mind:
- tolerating and often having holy day (like Easter and Christmas) observance
- tolerating and often having women communicant members without headcoverings in public worship
- tolerating and often having preaching where doctrines are taught from the
pulpit which are contrary to the Biblical doctrines outlined in the original
Westminster Standards
- tolerating and often using Bibles from the pulpit based upon the critical
text and not the Received Text, thus undermining the providential preservation
of scripture
- constitutionally allowing Arminians
and others who disagree with Biblical Reformation doctrines to communion
- financial support of a denomination whose official college chapel allows all
sorts of worship deviations
While I realize each of the above are not present in every local church in the
RPCNA, it is certainly true with many, and at various RPCNA conferences.
If it is all right to be joined to a church with an admittedly erroneous
confession (that is not even fully subscribed to by officers or members and
where it is really not clear that the Reformation doctrines are fully
subscribed to as a church), and with worship practices I note above, then I am
at some loss to understand why the Church of Rome cannot be joined. If a
denominational church body has effectively already conceded that the Bible is
not clear enough to hold everyone to some church confession, and that it is not
even clear what the Bible text is (critical text or received text), then what
becomes of the fundamental Protestant doctrine of scripture, not to mention the
doctrines of grace, etc?
And are we not enabling compromise in doctrine and false methods of church
unity if we join a church denomination which clearly rejects the doctrines of
the original Westminster Standards instead of joining with one that adheres to
them? If we go around trying to convince people not to join a church
denomination which adheres to the original Westminster Standards but instead to
join one that disagrees with the original Westminster Standards, how is that
helping to build a church unity based upon the doctrines of the original
Westminster Standards?