OPC Statements and Communications on Issues in Society

From time to time, as situations have arisen, the General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has spoken to issues in society, whether by statements, letters, or petitions. Here are a few examples:

1. 1937 Statements on Atheistic Movements, Communism, and Pacifism.

At its third general assembly (1937), the OPC (then called the Presbyterian Church of America) adopted an overture to warn all their churches to take their stand against atheistic movements and “that to tolerate communism in our midst is equivalent to the destruction of our Church.”

WHEREAS atheistic movements under various names are working through the Church life of this nation, not only to overthrow the Christian faith of the present adult generation, but seriously to impair the the faith of the growing youth of our nation, therefore: 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Presbytery of California, Presbyterian Church America, respectfully overtures the Third General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of America, meeting in Philadelphia, June 1, 1937, to warn all of our churches and churches which will ultimately be formed to take their stand against all such movements, and so to indoctrinate our people in the doctrines of the Christian faith that they will be able to discern the true from the false, and that to tolerate communism in our midst is equivalent to the destruction of our Church. 

Passed by unanimous vote of the Presbytery of California, of the Presbyterian Church of America, on April 13, 1937.

Concurred in by Northwest, Chicago Area.

Concurred with slight amendment, Iowa.

The overture was approved by the General Assembly by a vote of 42 to 30. The same assembly also adopted another overture in amended form publicly reaffirming WCF 23.1-2 in light of “widespread confusion of thought in this nation on the relation of Christians to military institutions of duly constituted civil authorities”.

2. 1972 Statement on Abortion

In 1972, the 39th General Assembly of the OPC adopted a statement affirming that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13). 

Believing that unborn children are living creatures in the image of God, given by God as a blessing to their parents, we therefore affirm that voluntary abortion, except possibly to save the physical life of the mother, is in violation of the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13). We state the following reasons:

1. The Bible treats human personhood as beginning at conception (Psalm 139:13-16; 51:5; Jeremiah 1:4,5; Luke 1:14-44; 1:29-38; Exodus 21:22-25). 
2. The Bible considers the human person to be a complete person (Genesis 2:7; Numbers 23:10; Deuteronomy 6:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:23). This unity is severed only by death and then only temporarily until the natural, intended union is restored at the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5:8; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17). 
3. The Bible forbids murder because man is created in the image of God (Genesis 9:5, 6). The Bible further says that succeeding generations of men are conceived in the image of God (Genesis 5:1-3). 

We call upon society and the church to show compassion toward unwed mothers and mothers of unwanted children. To this end, not only sympathetic counsel, but also concrete help should be extended (1 John 3:16-18; James 2:14-17).

But we also call upon our society to return to the law of God, recognizing the Word of God that "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34).

You can find this statement on the OPC website here and in the minutes of the 39th GA of the OPC (Minutes, May 15-20, 1972, pp. 17-18, 149). The background for this is that the General Assembly set up a study committee on the topic in 1970 in response to an overture from the Presbytery of New Jersey asking the assembly to declare "that life being given by God should not be terminated by abortion, apart from valid medical grounds related to the preservation of the life of the mother." (1970 was the same year that Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court of the USA.) This study committee delivered its report to the assembly in 1971. This report was sent to the presbyteries, and two of them (NJ and Northern CA) sent overtures to the next assembly with similar proposed statements. A slightly amended version of one of these was the statement adopted in 1972. (The Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, a decision that was later overruled by its Dobbs decision in 2022.)

There was a protest submitted by some members of the assembly against making this statement, not for the content, but because they objected to making such statements apart from particular judicial cases. The assembly's response to the protest called attention to WCF 31.2 and added "The church of Christ, in assembly at Jerusalem, resolved a case of doctrine and conscience not brought to it as a judicial proceeding against any individual (Acts 15). Granting that resolutions on such cases should be made with discretion and only in matters of great concern, the Assembly reaffirms its right and duty to declare the truth ministerially to the people of God and the world in which we live."

3. 1993 Petition to the President Regarding the Sin of Homosexual Activity

In 1993, the 60th General Assembly of the OPC submitted a humble petition to President Clinton, asking him to stand against the sin of homosexual activity. The terminology of "humble petition" comes from our Confession of Faith, which says that "Synods and councils ... are not to intermeddle with civil affairs which concern the commonwealth, unless by way of humble petition in cases extraordinary; or, by way of advice, for satisfaction of conscience, if they be thereunto required by the civil magistrate" (WCF 31.4). 

Bill Clinton had been elected president in 1992 and in his campaign he had indicated he would allow homosexuals to serve in the military. Once he became president, he called for legislation that would lift the ban that prohibited this. In this context, the Presbytery of Northern California sent an overture to the General Assembly with proposed language for a petition, and this was amended and adopted. This petition can be found on the OPC website here as well as in the minutes of the 60th GA of the OPC. 

The 60th General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church humbly petitions the President of the United States of America to stand against the sin of homosexual activity. We support this petition with the following considerations.

Based on the Word of God and his creation law, homosexuality (including bisexuality and lesbianism) violates God's non-negotiable moral standard and therefore is sin. According to the Scripture of the Old and New Testaments, it is an abomination and contrary to nature as God intended for man and woman. "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable" (Leviticus 18:22). "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion" (Romans 1:26-27).

The practice of homosexuality is a reproach to any nation. It undermines the family, and poses a substantial threat to the general health, safety and welfare of our citizens. Your own Christian background ought to demonstrate to you the practical benefits of upholding the biblical stand against homosexuality, especially in light of the current epidemic of AIDS and other diseases spread through homosexual conduct.

And, specifically, we urge you as Commander-in-Chief of all the armed services not to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military. Lifting the ban would effectively discriminate against chaplains who hold to biblical ethics by forbidding them to preach God's law against this sin. Such a prohibition compromises the Free Exercise of Religion clause as well as the gospel message which delivers homosexuals from this destructive practice. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Moreover, any such preaching subsequent to lifting the ban might be considered a hate crime.

Therefore, for the honor of Christ and his Church, and the welfare of our nation, we exhort you to remember the words of the wisest magistrate, "Righteousness exalts a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people" (Proverbs 14:34). Our prayers go with you, your family and your administration, and we commend to you the salvation that comes only though Jesus Christ our Lord. "I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness" (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

Very respectfully submitted,

The General Assembly of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church

June, 1993

At the end of that year, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was adopted by the Department of Defense as a compromise measure that continued to bar openly homosexual persons from the military.  

4. 2001 Statement on Women and the Military

In 1998, the General Assembly of the OPC set up a study committee on women and the military, in light of the possibility that the requirement to register for the Selective Service might be extended to women. This committee presented an initial report in 1999. The General Assembly returned the report and pending motions to the committee for further study and reflection and added two more members to the committee. In 2000, the General Assembly ran out of time to consider the expanded report. In 2001, the 68th General Assembly of the OPC heard the report and responded by adopting the following statement: 

The 68th GA declares that the use of women in military combat is both contrary to nature and inconsistent with the Word of God.

The OPC was not alone in making such statements. I have posted about this before, and you can read the statements from the PCA, RPCNA, and ARPC at this link.

There was a protest made by some members of the assembly over whether there was sufficient biblical grounds for the statement, objecting that the statement rested on a report that argued largely from Old Testament narrative and civil law, supposing this to be in contradiction to WCF 19.4. The General Assembly responded that it adopted the statement because it was convinced there was sufficient biblical grounds, that New Testament passages affirm the principles that lay behind the direct teaching of the Old Testament on the topic, and that it is legitimate to declare a position argued largely from Old Testament narrative and civil law (giving examples of where this is done in our confessional standards). I think the General Assembly got it right here and that this is a good example of how the judicial laws of the Old Testament continue to bind nations today as far as their general equity requires (WCF 19.4). In the Bible, men alone are assigned the responsibility for national defense (Neh. 4:14, Num. 1:2-3, Deut. 24:5), and this was not something pertaining to ancient Israel alone, but a principle based in the creation order (Gen. 1:27, Is. 19:16, Jer. 51:30, 1 Peter 3:7). I have written more about WCF 19.4 and general equity here and here. 

5. 2010 Letter to the Department of Defense 

In 2010, the 77th General Assembly of the OPC sent a letter to the The Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group. You can find the letter on the OPC website here, and I will quote both the stated clerk's note regarding the context as well as the letter itself. 

Stated clerk's note: The United States Secretary of Defense has established a Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group to "review issues associated with the possible repeal of 10 U.S.C. §654, which would allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, and to develop an implementation plan, should Congress repeal the law." In the course of that review the working group solicited comments from agencies that endorse chaplains. The 77th General Assembly of the OPC has responded to that request with the following letter.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Office of the General Assembly

George R. Cottenden, Stated Clerk

July 20, 2010

TO: The Department of Defense Comprehensive Review Working Group

c/o Chaplain (COL) Gary Linsky

SUBJECT: Concern about Repeal of the Current Military Policy Prohibiting Homosexual Behavior

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) is thankful for the opportunity to respond to the letter of Major General (S) Gregory A. Biscone, USAF, Chief of Staff and the subsequent letter from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense under the signatures of Chaplain (Major General) Douglas L. Carver, USA, Chairman and Army Chief of Chaplains; RADM; CHC, Robert F. Burt, USN: Chief of Chaplains; and Chaplain (Major General) Cecil R. Richardson, USAF, Chief of Chaplains soliciting our "views ... regarding the impact of the repeal of [10 U.S.C. §654]" and promoting dialog "with civilian organizations regarding religious issues" (see attachments 1 & 2). We regret that the Assembly itself could not make the 15 May 2010 deadline, for our denomination did not meet in deliberative session until our July General Assembly. This is the official response that supersedes the earlier communication you received 15 May 2010 (see attachment 3).

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church is gravely concerned over the potential repeal of 10 U.S.C. 8654 that governs the service of homosexual individuals in our military. Therefore, we are grateful for your desire to consider carefully the moral implications of your approving sexual practices that God has explicitly condemned.

We are concerned that the repeal of the current law may go so far as to force our currently serving chaplains to choose between violating their ordination vows and resigning from the military. They have affirmatively answered the following question in their ordination: "Do you believe the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice?" Thus, OPC chaplains preach and counsel from the Scriptures because they are convinced that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17). (All Bible citations are from the English Standard Version.)

We are concerned that other members of the OPC who are serving in the Armed Forces may also be coerced to teach and enforce a policy that explicitly violates the Word of God. When they took their membership vows in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church they answered "Yes" to this question: "Do you believe the Bible, consisting of the Old and New Testaments, to be the Word of God, and its doctrine of salvation to be the perfect and only true doctrine of salvation?"

Several Bible passages forthrightly state God's condemnation of homosexual behavior. From the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Romans 1:18-33 in the New Testament historically and prophetically describes how the wrath of God is revealed against people who, by their own sinful behavior, suppress the truth about the one true God and how the moral disintegration of society follows. In the consequent moral disintegration in human society, the acceptance of homosexuality is a prominent symptom: "26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature: 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Our military chaplains and members are concerned about the following specific consequences:

• Chaplains may be open to charges of discrimination or command reprimand when they preach or counsel in accordance with the passages in the Bible which directly speak of the sin of homosexual practice. Such threats compromise the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion clause and the freedom of speech as well as the gospel message which delivers homosexuals from this destructive practice (1 Corinthians 6:9-11—Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.)

• Bibles in military chapels and on military bases may be under the threat of excision of all passages which speak very directly to the sin of homosexual practice. Whether it be under the guise of opposing "hate speech" or alleging insubordinate opposition to a policy of the Department of Defense, the effort may be made soon after the repeal of the law.

• Marriage and family retreats conducted by chaplains intended to strengthen traditional marriages and families may have to include homosexual couples, which will violate chaplains' faith tenets and may discourage the voluntary participation of unmarried, heterosexual couples.

• Homosexual couples may seek union ceremonies or marriages, which are in violation of the beliefs and ordination vows of a large percentage of military chaplains, not just those from this denomination. Refusal may invite the charge of discrimination and command reprimand.

These expressions are consistent with the Chaplain's Manual of the Presbyterian and Reformed Joint Commission on Chaplains and Military Personnel, Section "Policy and Guidance; V. HOMOSEXUALITY" (we will be happy to provide a copy upon request) and our own denomination's Instruments of the General Assembly, Appendix A (www.opc.org/GA/Instruments2009.pdf, p. 3023, starting at line 530).

We provide this response for the good of the nation, for the integrity and effectiveness of the chaplains who serve the nation on behalf of their church, for the military and spiritual welfare of our members who serve in the Armed Forces, and for the protection of the constitutional principle of the free exercise of religion.

Sincerely,

George R. Cottenden

Stated Clerk, The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

Enclosures: 3

DOD Comprehensive Review Working Group

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

Committee on Chaplains and Military Personnel to CRWG correspondence

cc: Major General Douglas L. Carver, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Army

Rear Admiral Robert F. Burt, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Navy

Major General Cecil R. Richardson, Chief of Chaplains, U. S. Air Force

Rear Admiral Mark L. Tidd, Chaplain of the Marine Corps

Chaplain (COL) Thomas E. Preston, Executive Director, Armed Forces Chaplain Board

A Denominational Primer

In the following ten articles, I give overviews of the major denominational traditions in the light of church history and Scripture. I do so from the perspective of a Presbyterian and I also write with the American context especially in mind. 

Presbyterian and Reformed

Anglican and Episcopalian 

Congregationalist

Baptist

Methodist and Holiness

Pentecostal and Charismatic

Restorationist

Lutheran

Roman Catholic

Eastern Orthodox

As I mention in the articles, the church first experienced a split between the Eastern Orthodox church and the church in the West. The Western church then underwent a split during the 16th century Reformation between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. During the Reformation, the Protestants gradually formed into two groups: Lutheran and Reformed.

The Reformed churches included a mainstream - the Continental Reformed and Presbyterian churches - as well as the Anglican Church (Church of England) and the Congregationalist churches. The Presbyterian, Anglican, and Congregationalist churches were the main churches in the British colonies that declared independence in 1776. From the Anglicans (called Episcopalians in the USA after independence) came the Methodists, from the Congregationalists came the Baptists, and from the Presbyterians came the Restorationists, generally speaking. (It should be noted that the Restorationists went further from the Presbyterian position than did the Baptists and even the Methodists.) 

These six major denominational traditions (Episcopal, Congregationalist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Restorationist), along with the Lutherans, became the mainline churches in America. Roman Catholic numbers rose in America due to immigration and expansion, and some Eastern Orthodox immigrants came to America as well. The Pentecostal movement arose from the Methodist/Holiness tradition around 1900. And thus you get these ten major denominational traditions, all of which are worldwide as well as being present here in America.

I would note that the order in which I have listed them does not necessarily indicate how close they are doctrinally. Lutherans are much more like Presbyterians than Pentecostals are, for example. Rather, they are ordered in the way I thought made the most sense in seeking to explain how they are related to each other.

Some might wonder where the non-denominational churches are. After all, more and more American Christians are non-denominational. I did not include them since they are independent churches that are essentially in one or another of these traditions (or possibly a mix of two), simply without a regional or national organization.

Of course, from a Protestant perspective, the church of Jesus Christ is bigger than any one of these denominations. Chapters 25 and 26 of the Westminster Confession of Faith describe the biblical doctrine of the church well. May the Lord Jesus sanctify his church, removing false teaching and corrupt practices, working through us to build it up in truth and love, that we might clearly proclaim the truth of God's word together and stand firm "in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents" (Phil. 1:27-28).

Eastern Orthodox

As the Roman Empire divided into western and eastern portions, so the church in these regions gradually grew apart. They came to have different languages (Latin and Greek) and different political situations (Germanic tribes/Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Roman Empire). Friction between the two arose, and several particular conflicts like the one in AD 1054 drove the two apart, despite various efforts to regain unity. 

While both the eastern and western churches claimed to be orthodox and catholic, the eastern churches later came to be commonly called Eastern Orthodox or Orthodox. The word "orthodox" is a good word, meaning "right doctrine" (or, according to many Eastern Orthodox, "right worship"), and is even used by my denomination, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, without any reference to Eastern Orthodoxy.

Eastern Orthodox churches are united in an acceptance of the “seven ecumenical councils,” as well as communion with the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, and shared liturgical practices (the Byzantine Rite). They also share a rejection of the Roman bishop’s claim to universal supremacy. There are about 14 autocephalous regional churches in communion with each other, each having a head bishop that does not report to a higher-ranking bishop (nine of these head bishops are called patriarchs, including the four mentioned above). There are also a few other regional churches whose autocephalous status is contested, some not recognized by Constantinople and some not recognized by Russia. This structure, of a communion of regional churches organized with episcopal government, is similar to the structure of the Anglican Communion. Eastern Orthodox churches are found mostly in countries like Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Belarus, the Balkans, Greece, and Georgia. There are around 260 million people that are Eastern Orthodox in the world today. 

Notable Eastern Orthodox figures include John of Damascus (8th century), Photius (9th century), Gregory Palamas (14th century), Cyril Lucaris (17th century), Seraphim Rose (20th century), Alexander Schmemann (20th century), and Kallistos Ware (20th century).

Differences Between East and West

The Eastern church came to differ from the Western church (from which came both Roman Catholic churches and the Protestant churches) in the following ways.

• The filioque clause in the Nicene Creed. This is the clause that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father "and the Son." This clause was adopted in the West, e.g. Council of Toledo in 589, but never adopted by the East. 

• The use of icons. There was division within the East for a time over the use of icons. At the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 the East affirmed the veneration of icons. Much of the West opposed it at first, but gradually adopted a similar use of images until the Reformation. I have written more about this history here: The Iconoclast Controversy. 

• The leadership of the church and the rise of the papacy. The East has always denied that the pope has universal supremacy or infallibility. It gives the patriarch of Constantinople a position of honor, but not of rule over the whole church, placing more weight on councils and regional churches.

• Leavened or unleavened bread in communion. The East used leavened bread, while the West used unleavened. 

• Facial hair. Eastern clergy did not shave, while Western clergy did shave. 

• Married priests. The West forbade the marriage of priests in the 11th century, while the East allowed it, although it forbade getting married after ordination and married bishops.

• Purgatory. The West affirmed it, while the East did not.

• Original sin. The West affirmed the doctrine, being more strongly influenced by Augustine, while the East held to a weaker view. 

• Immaculate conception of Mary. The West would begin to affirm it, while the East denied it.

• Mode of baptism. The West used sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, while the East only immersed.

• Age of confirmation and first communion. The West waited until the age of discretion and first confession, while the East gave communion to baptized infants.

• Calendar. The West adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1582, while the Eastern church has retained the older Julian calendar for ecclesiastical use. 

• The East used the Greek translation of the Old Testament (and the Greek New Testament), rather than the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible (which translated the Old Testament from Hebrew).

• Different emphases. The West would give more attention to the atonement, justification, and doctrine than the East, while the East would put more emphasis on “deification,” mystical devotion, and liturgy.

Notice that in some of these categories, the Protestants continue to hold the Western position, as with the filioque clause, original sin, mode of baptism, rejection of paedo-communion, the eventual use of the Gregorian calendar, and general emphases; while in other areas Protestants adopt a position more like that of the East, as with rejection of papal claims, allowing the use of leavened bread in communion, of clerical facial hair, the marriage of minsters, and rejection of purgatory.

Eastern Orthodoxy and the Reformation

The existence of the Eastern church formed one hole in Roman Catholic arguments as the Reformation began. Some Protestants had hopes of working with them. In fact, there was a Calvinist patriarch of Constantinople, Cyril Lucaris (1570–1638). As a younger priest, he had encountered Lutherans as he supported Orthodox believers in eastern Europe against the Papists. Later in Egypt, he encountered Reformed theology through a Dutch ambassador to the Ottomans. Lucaris sought to reform the Eastern church and make common cause with Protestants against Rome. His Confession of Faith (1629) proclaimed justification by faith alone, predestination, and sola scriptura. But due to a deal between the Jesuits and Ottomans, he was killed in 1638. Several Eastern Orthodox synods in the 1600s condemned Lucaris’ confession and Protestantism, including the Synod of Jerusalem (1672), motivated it seems by Jesuit influence. Thus, the Eastern Orthodox churches did not experience the Reformation.

Eastern Orthodoxy and America

Eastern Orthodoxy first came to America from Russia to Alaska in the 1700s. This mission of the Orthodox church in Russia moved its headquarters to San Fransisco and then to New York City. It grew through immigrants and through gaining some people who left the Roman Catholic Church. Russian leadership was lost with the Russian Revolution in 1917. The North America diocese operated independently and eventually became the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) when it was granted (disputed) autocephalous status in 1970. But in the meantime, other immigrant groups looked to their own homelands for leadership, so that other Orthodox missions were started. Today there are 13 branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church present in the USA, with most American Eastern Orthodox churches being Greek Orthodox, OCA, or Antiochian Orthodox.

Evaluation 

The Eastern Orthodox Church has some of the problems that the Roman Catholic Church has (e.g. use of images, rejecting sola scriptura, insisting on apostolic episcopal succession, prayers for the intercession of dead saints). It also rejects or at least does not affirm some Roman Catholic errors (e.g. rejects papal supremacy and infallibility, less precise on transubstantiation and justification). It also has some problems of its own (e.g. rejects the filioque clause, weaker on original sin, weaker on doctrine in general).

Some areas of appreciation:

• Their emphasis on the doctrine of the Trinity in doctrine and liturgy.

• Their emphasis on union with Christ, sanctification, and glorification.

• Their relative freedom from the critical spirit of the Enlightenment.

• Their music, especially their Psalm singing.

• Their assent to the doctrinal affirmations of the first six ecumenical councils

• Their perseverance under persecution by Islam and Communism. 

Primary objections:

• Their denial of sola scriptura, seeing Scripture as an especially important part of infallible church tradition; their idea that the Spirit speaks through the church, including through the Scripture as the main written authority in the church, but not the only rule of faith and life. (Extra-biblical church tradition is mostly the ecumenical councils and the liturgy, containing less dogmas than the RCC).

• Their recognition of the apocrypha as Scripture, adding books to the Old Testament not given as Scripture or recognized as Scripture by the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2).

• Their veneration of icons, both in authoritative doctrine (Nicaea II) and in practice.

• Their doctrine of original sin and free will, of predestination based on foresight of the use of prevenient grace, rather than the predestination of those unconditionally chosen according to his sovereign grace and his effectual calling of them (John 6, 10). 

• Their prayer to deceased saints for their intercession, and prayer for the dead. 

• Their hostility to the filioque clause. In fact, the Spirit does proceed from the Father and the Son, being the Spirit of the Father and the Spirit of the Son (John 15:26, Galatians 4:6).

• Their insistence on apostolic episcopal succession, namely, that only bishops can ordain a person who may truly administer the sacraments through which a person is saved.

• The distinction that has become common in Eastern Orthodox circles between God’s unknowable essence and his energies, so that we can only describe God by negation.

• Their downplaying of teaching and of doctrine (beyond the seven councils), which is generally a weakness. Its approach to worship breeds superstition.

A classis of the URCNA has produced a study report on Eastern Orthodoxy that identifies four reasons people give for joining Eastern Orthodox churches: mystery, history, beauty, and experience. But, on the one hand, these things can be found in the Reformed tradition; and on the other hand, Eastern Orthodox mystery is too agnostic, its tie to history is later and more forged than they claim, its beauty also includes superstition and is at times overdone and gaudy, and its experience is not a safe guide. And the eastern church fathers, like Chrysostom, are not their sole possession - we, like the Reformers, can learn from them as our fathers too. 

Roman Catholic

Thus far in this series on denominations, we have looked at the eight major denominational traditions that are Protestant. Today we turn to an overview of Roman Catholicism. During the Reformation in the 16th century, the western church split into Protestant and Romanist churches. Just as there were proto-Reformers in the medieval era, so also the beliefs and practices that would define the Roman Catholic Church had been developing for some time. Yet Roman Catholicism would take its dogmatic and well-defined form as a denomination in Rome’s negative response to the Reformation. The Roman "Catholic" Church claims to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, not merely a branch of it, but this is one of its false claims.

History

Pre-Reformation

In general, many errors and bad practices developed in the medieval era, and yet things were contested and debated, and various reform movements were active in that era. 

Transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass

The word “transubstantiation” was first affirmed in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council. The word was used more and more over time, even while the doctrine that the substance of the bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ was opposed by the Waldensians, Lollards, and Hussites. The idea that the Lord’s Supper was a propitiatory sacrifice for sins developed gradually in connection with other beliefs like transubstantiation and purgatory.

Purgatory and Indulgences

The idea of purgatory developed gradually, more in the west than the east, as a consequence of beliefs concerning penance and the satisfaction of the temporal penalties for sin. What began as church discipline turned into a system of making satisfaction, even after death. This in turn led to the use of indulgences, and eventually even the sale of indulgences, that remitted some of these temporal penalties. 

Papal Authority

Due to the historic prominence of the city of Rome, the bishop of Rome held an influential position in the church. In 1303, Boniface VIII issued Unam Sanctam, in which he asserted his authority over the state and said “Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.” But it took time for this claim to be established and recognized. Boniface VIII was soon arrested by French troops and died shortly after. The “Babylonian captivity of the papacy” in France lasted from 1305 to 1376. This was succeeded by the “Western Schism” from 1378 to 1417, in which there was more than one person who claimed to be the bishop of Rome (i.e. the Pope).

Reformation and Counter-Reformation

Pope Leo X rejected Martin Luther’s appeals for reform and held firmly to the sale of indulgences. He excommunicated Luther and died about a year later. 

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) met to respond to the Reformation. Despite some dissenting voices, it generally rejected the Protestant position and stated it own contrary position. It also made some reforms, such as forbidding the sale of indulgences (although not the granting of them).

The Council of Trent was part of, and a foundation for, the Counter-Reformation. The Counter-Reformation was led by men like Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556, founder of the Jesuits), Charles Borromeo (1538-1584, Archbishop of Milan), and Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621, a Jesuit theology professor and Archbishop of Capua). The Counter-Reformation in the 1600s mostly halted the advance of Protestantism in Europe and led to the retaking of some territory (e.g. Poland) and foreign missions (e.g. Japan). The first English Bible to be printed with Papal approval was published in 1582 (NT) and 1610 (OT).

Scipione Rebiba (1504–1577) is an important figure, since about 95% of Roman Catholic bishops today (and all popes since 1700) trace their ordinations back to him and it is unknown who ordained him. Thus, most of them cannot trace their ordinations back to the apostles, something they believe to be essential for a valid ministry.

America

While the first two churches in what is now the United States of America were Roman Catholic (in Florida and New Mexico), Roman Catholicism was a fringe minority in the British colonies that became the United States. The most prominent Roman Catholics were in Maryland, and the first Roman Catholic bishop in the United States (1790) was John Carroll in Baltimore. His cousin signed the Declaration and his brother signed the Constitution. Many Roman Catholic immigrants arrived in the 1800s (e.g. Irish, Germans, Italians) and the United States grew to include historically Roman Catholic territories, such as Florida, Louisiana, and the Southwest. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church became the largest denomination in America by 1850 (i.e. after the Mexican-American War), although it remained outside the “mainline.” In the mid-1900s, Fulton Sheen was a prominent bishop in America, hosting a television program.

Later Councils

Vatican I (1870) - This council dogmatically affirmed the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the pope when he speaks ex cathedra. Those who disagreed formed the Old Catholic Church, separate from Rome.

Vatican II (1962-1965) - The full impact of this council is hard to summarize. It led to the use of vernacular languages in the Mass instead of Latin, communion under both kinds (bread and wine), reduction of the prohibition of meat to just the Fridays of Lent, other liturgical changes, and a softer approach to other churches and religions. Bishop Wojtyła took part in this council and became Pope John Paul II in 1978.

Overview

The Church of Rome teaches that special revelation from God is given to us through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium (the Pope and the bishops in communion with him).

As is the case with historic Protestants, they use the Creeds, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer as basic catechetical summaries of the Christian religion. Another structure that is used by them (and some Protestants) to teach the Christian life is the seven virtues, composed of the four cardinal virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance and the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity. They also teach that there are seven (not just two) sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

Errors

Authority, Succession, Canon, and Implicit Faith

They add tradition to Scripture, denying the sufficiency of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17). They insist on a certain episcopal “apostolic succession” of ordinations for a valid ministry without biblical warrant. They recognize the Apocrypha as Scripture (adding books to the Old Testament not given as Scripture or recognized as Scripture by the Jews, who were entrusted with the oracles of God, Rom. 3:2). And they demand and teach an implicit faith in what the church officially teaches, denying liberty of conscience. They wrongly exalt the pope as the earthly head of the whole church, with spiritual and temporal jurisdiction, while in fact Christ is the only head of his church (Col. 1:18, Eph. 2:20). 

Justification

They accept the satisfaction of Christ for their satisfaction, but not for their righteousness before God. They teach that justification is by the forgiveness of sins and by the renewal of the inner man, on the basis of which a person is declared to be righteous. I have written more about these errors and those of the next paragraph here.

Penance, Temporal Penalties for Sin, and the Sacrifice of the Mass

They teach that justification can be lost by mortal sins but restored through penance; that temporal penalties remain even when the guilt and punishment of sin is remitted; that if a believer dies before suffering all the temporal punishments for their sins, they must be further purified by suffering in purgatory; and that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is a reparation for the sins of the living and the dead that obtains spiritual or temporal benefits from God.

Worship and the Saints

They add many ceremonies without warrant of Scripture. They pray to dead saints and pray for the souls of the dead in purgatory. Their prayers to dead saints often ascribe far too much to them, and their use of their relics is superstitious. They direct their worship of God and veneration of the saints to (“through”) images. They also have some errors in their moral teaching, such as their current opposition to the death penalty and their prohibition of divorce in all cases.

What Good Remains

The Roman Church retains many truths, even if it also misleads or obscures the truth by other teachings. For example, they affirm the doctrines of God, the Trinity, Scripture (that it is the word of God), the Incarnation, Christ’s life, miracles, death, resurrection, ascension, and coming to judge the world; and that Christ’s obedient sacrifice of himself was offered in reparation for our disobedience, atoned for our faults, made satisfaction for our sins to the Father, and merited justification for us (CCC 613-617). They believe in the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life of the age to come. They retain baptism (a washing with water, in the name of the Trinity, with the design to signify, seal, and apply the benefits of the new covenant). They have successfully resisted cultural pressures to give official approval to abortion, homosexual marriage, and the ordination of women.

The Status of the Roman Church from a Protestant Perspective

A good analogy that was used by the Reformers was that of the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom professed the true God, its members were marked by the sign of the covenant, and there was a remnant of faithful believers in it; yet that kingdom had departed from ordinances God had appointed in Jerusalem, they had substituted for them the idolatrous and corrupt worship of the true God using golden calves, and they were led by kings that made the people to sin in unfaithfulness to their covenant God. Calls were given to the northern kingdom and its members to turn to their Lord and to worship him in Jerusalem.

Calvin compared the Roman Church to ancient Israel when it had fallen into apostasy but nevertheless retained God’s covenant and circumcision, so that the children born of that people were his (Ezek. 16:20-21). He denied that we must maintain fellowship with them and accept their teaching, but also conceded that, “the Lord has left in them some trace and semblance of his church. There is, first, God’s covenant, which cannot be broken, and baptism, which is its sacrament and which, being hallowed by the Lord’s mouth, retains its force despite the impiety of man. To sum up, we do not at all deny that in them exists a church, nor do we simply affirm it without qualification. These are churches to the extent that our Lord preserves in them the remnants of his people who are miserably scattered among them; to the extent, too, that they retain some marks of the church, especially those whose effectiveness cannot be destroyed either by the devil’s wiles or by human wickedness. On the other hand, because the marks essential to the church we now describe are there erased, if we seek a properly ordered church, no lawful form of it will be found there.”

The beliefs of its members are supposed to be whatever the church teaches, but this is often not the case. Their beliefs can be worse than the official dogma, but their beliefs can also be better, especially when they have been influenced by Protestants. If you are interacting with individuals in the Roman Church, it is important to not jump to conclusions. See what they themselves actually believe (and what they think you believe). Encourage them to be true to their baptism by resting upon Christ alone for their salvation if they don’t already, and by forsaking the false teaching and corrupt worship of the Roman church. Let them know that to leave the Roman church is not to leave the one holy catholic and apostolic church that Christ founded. The Reformers did not found a new church during the Protestant Reformation. They worked to reform the church of Jesus Christ, which already existed.

More on the Judicial Laws of the Old Testament

Almost two years ago, I posted The Judicial Laws of the Old Testament. If you are interested in the topic, I would recommend you begin there. What follows is a supplement to that post, with quotes from other writers on the topic to further support what I wrote there. 

William Perkins 

William Perkins (1558-1602) was a leading English theologian during the Elizabethan era. He was especially influential among the Puritans, including those who attended the Westminster Assembly. He wrote the following about the judicial laws of the Old Testament in A discourse of conscience (1596), p. 17-18 (spelling modernized). Notice how he is speaking of the relevance of these laws to nations and commonwealths, and how he makes the same twofold distinction I mention in my earlier post, and how he teaches that judicial laws of common (general) equity are, in respect of their substance, binding. 

But touching other nations and specially Christian commonwealths in these days, the case is otherwise. Some are of the opinion, that the whole judicial law is wholly abolished: and some again run to the other extreme, holding that the judicial laws bind Christians as straightly as the Jews: but no doubt they are both are wide; and the safest course is the keep to the mean between both. Therefore the judicial laws of Moses according to the substance and scope thereof must distinguished in which respects they are of two sorts. Some of them are laws of particular equity, some of common equity. Laws of particular equity, are such as prescribe justice according to the particular estate and condition of the Jews’ commonwealth and to the circumstances thereof time, place, persons, things, actions. Of this kind was the law, that the brother should raise up seed to his brother and many such like and none of them bind us because they were framed and tempered to a particular people.

Judicials of common equity are such as are made according to the law or instinct of nature common to all men: and these, in respect of their substance, bind the consciences not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles: for they were not given to the Jews as they were Jews, that is, a people received into the covenant above all other nations, brought from Egypt to the land of Canaan, of whom the Messiah according to the flesh was to come: but they were given to them as they were mortal men subject to the order and laws of nature as all other nations are. Again, judicial laws, so far forth as they have in them the general or common equity of the law of nature are moral: and therefore binding in conscience, as the moral law.

Perkins goes on to describe that "a judicial law may be known to be a law of common equity" if either of two things be found in it: first, if wise men among the nations have by natural reason judged the same to be just and necessary, enacting laws the same in substance in their commonwealths; or second, "if it serve directly to explain and confirm any of the ten precepts of the Decalogue: or, if it serve directly to maintain and uphold any of the three estates of the family, the commonwealth, the Church. And whether this be so or no, it will appear, if we do but consider the matter of the law, and the reasons or considerations upon which the Lord was moved to give the same unto the Jews." He illustrates this by two such laws of common equity, that murderers be put to death and that the adulterer and adulteress should die the death.

Synopsis of Purer Theology

The Synopsis of Purer Theology, also known as “the Leiden Synopsis,” was an important and influential theological textbook from four professors of the University of Leiden first published in 1625. The following quotation is from the English translation published by Davenant Press in 2023 (the brackets in the quote are in that edition). Disputation 18, section 51 states,

Even to the present-day governing officials and their subjects one and all are obliged to obey those precepts in this political law that belong to the universal law; however, the ones that belong to the particular Jewish [political] law have become obsolete along with the Mosaic system of government.

Note again the distinction between general/universal and particular, with the precepts of the judicial/political law that belong to the universal law binding present-day governing officials and their subjects.

James Ussher

James Ussher (1581-1656) was the Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland and was invited to serve as a member of the Westminster Assembly. While he declined due to his royalist principles, he nevertheless had an influence on the assembly. One source of this influence was his book, The Body of Divinity (1645). Here is what that book has to say about the judicial laws (p. 204).

Did God give no other law but the Morall law onely?

Yes, he added the Ceremoniall and Judiciall laws, as speciall explications and applications of the law Morall, unto that present Church and people the Israelites.

What was the Ceremoniall law?

That law which did set down orders for direction in rites of outward worship, shadowing the grace of the Gospel (Heb. 10. 1, &c.)

Are we bound to keep and observe those laws?

No, for the substance being now exhibited, those shadows are utterly abolished by the death of Christ, and therefore the use of them now, would be a kind of denyall of his death.

What call you the Judiciall law?

That wherein God appointed a form of Politique and Civill government of the Common-wealth of the Jews, which therefore is ceased with the dissolution of that State, for which it was ordained; saving only in the common equity.

Is this law utterly revoked and abolished by Christ?

No; for he came not to overturn any good government of the Common-wealth, much lesse that which was appointed by God himself.

May not Christian Magistrates then swerve any thing from those laws of government, which were set down by Moses?

In some circumstances they may, but in the generall equity and substance they may not.

What Judiciall laws are immutably to be observed now of Christian Magistrates?

Those which have reasons annexed unto them, & specially those wherin God hath appointed death for the punishment of heinous offences.

What is the Morall law?

That which commandeth the perfection of godlinesse & righteousnesse, and directeth us in our duties to God and man, Deut. 5. 32. 12. 32.

The parallels to the language of the Westminster Confession (WCF 19.4) are noteworthy. Note also how he says that the judicial law is not utterly revoked and abolished by Christ, and that while Christian magistrates may swerve from those laws in some circumstances, they may not swerve from them in the general equity and substance. "Circumstances" are contrasted with "substance," as he also contrasts circumstance with substance with regard to worship (p. 225) - he is not using "in some circumstances" as we might to say "on some occasions." And he says that certain judicial laws are immutably to be observed now by Christian magistrates. As can be gathered from the context, "Christian magistrates" are mentioned in distinction from the Jewish magistrates of the Old Testament, not in contrast to unbelieving magistrates. The point is about the abiding authority of these laws on nations in this era ("now").

Ashbel Green 

Quotes from the time of the Westminster Assembly are most relevant for understanding its meaning, but it is useful also to note that the same way of speaking was maintained by later American Presbyterians as well. Ashbel Green (1762-1848) studied under John Witherspoon and was a Presbyterian pastor in Philadelphia, a member of the synod in 1788 that amended the Westminster standards and organized the General Assembly of the PCUSA, a chaplain of the US House of Representatives, and president of Princeton College. In his Lectures on the Shorter Catechism, vol. 2 (1841), p. 19, he makes the same distinction with regard to the judicial law (notice especially the last sentence; it is not just the law of nature, but any statute founded in the law of nature, that is still of binding force).

The judicial law of the ancient Israelites was that system of statutes which was given by God, for the temporal government of the Jews. It chiefly respected them as they were a nation distinct from all others — a theocracy, in which Jehovah sustained to them, not only the relation of Creator and Sovereign Lord, but that of a national head, or political chief. Some of these judicial laws, however, did not relate to the Jews as a peculiar people, but had their foundation clearly in the law of nature itself. This is, by no means, of small importance to be observed: because, although the judicial law, given by Moses, is completely abrogated, so far as it respected the peculiar constitution of the Jewish nation, yet, so far as it contains any statute founded in the law of nature, common to all nations, it is still of binding force.

Charles Hodge

Charles Hodge (1797–1878) grew up as a member of Ashbel Green's congregation and then attended Princeton College while Green was its president. Hodge went on to become a leading American Presbyterian theologian, serving as a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary from 1822 to his death in 1878. In his Systematic Theology, vol. 3 (p. 267-269), he mentions several classes of law in the Bible: (1) laws founded on the nature of God, (2) laws founded on the permanent relations of men in their present state of existence, and (3) laws founded in certain temporary relations of men. At this point, while discussing the third category, he comments on the judicial law. 

All those laws, therefore, in the Old Testament, which had their foundation in the peculiar circumstances of the Hebrews, ceased to be binding when the old dispensation passed away.

It is often difficult to determine to which of the last two classes certain laws of the Old Testament belong; and therefore, to decide whether they are still obligatory or not. Deplorable evils have flowed from mistakes as to this point. … On the other hand, there are some of the judicial laws of the Old Testament which were really founded on the permanent relations of men, and therefore, were intended to be of perpetual obligation, which many have repudiated as peculiar to the old dispensation. Such are some of the laws relating to marriage, and to the infliction of capital punishment for the crime of murder. If it be asked, How are we to determine whether any judicial law of the Old Testament is still in force? the answer is first, When the continued authority of such law is recognized in the New Testament. That for Christians is decisive. And secondly, If the reason or ground for a given law is permanent, the law itself is permanent.

After this he also goes on to mention a fourth class of laws: positive laws, driving all their authority from the explicit command of God.

Robert Shaw

Across the sea in Scotland, we find Robert Shaw (1795-1863), a Presbyterian pastor in Whitburn, writing the following about the judicial laws in his comments on WCF 19.4 in his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith (1845).

The judicial law respected the Jews in their political capacity, or as a nation, and consisted of those institutions which God prescribed to them for their civil government. This law, as far as the Jewish polity was peculiar, has also been entirely abolished; but as far as it contains any statute founded in the law of nature common to all nations, it is still obligatory. 

Conclusion

While applications of this interpretive principle could vary, yet the principle was rather stable. It was a common principle by the 1640s and then was enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith (19.4). Nevertheless, the general equity clause of WCF 19.4 is often overlooked today. All too often, people are quick to distance themselves from any abiding authority of the judicial laws in nations today.

While the judicial laws were given to a particular people in a particular situation (with both cultural and redemptive-historical particularities), the judicial laws of the Old Testament remain relevant for the governance of modern commonwealths. We neither dismiss them nor copy-and-paste them, but we distinguish. While the judicial laws expired with the state of ancient Israel, and do not bind states today insofar as they were peculiarly fitted to that state, yet they are binding on states today in substance insofar as they are of general equity.

Lutheran

As I said at the beginning of this study of denominations, the Protestant movement during the Reformation gradually formed into two parts: Lutheran and Reformed. In the early decades of the Reformation, there was a possibility that they might present a united Protestant front, but the distinction manifested at the Colloquy of Marburg (1529) would become more permanent in the middle and late 1500s as the early generation passed away and confessional documents crystallized issues and positions. The Reformed churches came to hold to documents like the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 39 Articles, and (later) the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, while the Lutheran churches would hold to some or all of the documents included in the Book of Concord (1580). The initial point of difference between the two traditions was the manner of Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper.

History

Some notable Lutheran ministers include Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Chemnitz, Henry Muhlenberg, C.F.W. Walther, Gerhard Forde, J.A.O. Preus II, Hans Fiene, and Jordan Cooper.

October 31, 1517 - Martin Luther, professor at Wittenberg, publishes his 95 theses concerning indulgences. This leads to the Heidelberg Disputation (1518) and the Disputation of Leipzig (1519)

1520 - Luther writes four short books. In December, Luther burns the Papal bull that threatened him with excommunication if he did not recant 41 statements. He is then excommunicated by the Pope.

1521 - The Imperial Diet of Worms; Luther refuses to recant before the emperor, Charles V. Safe in Wartburg Castle, Luther translates the New Testament into German (the Old Testament would be completed in 1534). In the same year, 24-year-old Philip Melanchthon writes the first Protestant systematic theology, Loci communes.

1526 - At the Diet of Speyer, local princes are permitted to decide religious issues. This is allowed to gain political unity in the Holy Roman Empire amid a war with France and the Pope. This gives opportunity for Protestant reforms.

1529 - Martin Luther writes the Small Catechism and the Large Catechism.

1530 - The Protestants present their confession of faith, written by Melanchthon with Luther’s approval, to the emperor at the Diet of Augsburg. Pressure from hostile Turks motivate the emperor to tolerate Protestants to maintain political unity. Protestantism also spreads to Scandinavia during this time. An Apology (Defense) of the Augsburg Confession is written by Melanchthon in 1531.

1537 - In preparation for a possible general church council, Luther writes the Smalcald Articles and Melanchthon writes The Power and Primacy of the Pope.

1546 - Martin Luther dies in February. In June, the emperor launches the Schmalkald War to subdue the Protestants.

1555 - A treaty is made, the Peace of Augsburg, which allows each territorial prince to decide whether the territory would be Lutheran or Roman Catholic.

1546-1577 - After Luther’s death, several controversies were debated in Lutheran circles on issues like Christ’s presence in the Lord’s Supper, original sin and free will, antinomianism, and adiaphora (things indifferent). Some Lutherans were closer to a Reformed understanding, prompting the charge of Crypto-Calvinism, while others were further away.

1577 - The Formula of Concord (its “Epitome” and its “Solid Declaration”) was produced to bring about unity among the Lutheran churches, addressing the controversies.

1580 - The Book of Concord was published, consisting of the three ecumenical creeds, the Augsburg Confession, the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, the Smalcald Articles, the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope, the Small Catechism, the Large Catechism, the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, and the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord. It gave unity to Lutherans and was adopted by many German Lutheran churches and lands, but not all. Some regions continued to only hold some of the documents as authoritative (usually regions that had not been disturbed by the controversies or that desired closer relations with Reformed churches and countries).

1600s-1700s
The Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation came back with a vengeance at the beginning of this century, and the 30 Years War broke out in Central Europe, in which Protestantism struggled for its freedom. Gustavus Adolphus was an important Lutheran king who kept the Protestant cause from falling at that time. After the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, these lands sought to recover. Pietism grew in the late 1600s and early 1700s in Lutheran lands as a movement in response to low religious conditions. Pietism was inspired by English Puritans and was itself an inspiration for later Methodism. Yet, this movement could be unbalanced. Others stressed the importance of orthodoxy and the church. At the same time, Lutheranism came to America in colonies like Pennsylvania. This era also saw the rise of Enlightenment Rationalism in Europe.

1800s-1900s
In this century immigration from Germany and Scandinavia to America increased. One cause was religious in nature, as when Prussian authorities sought to force Reformed and Lutheran churches to unite in one communion. Some of these “Old Lutherans” who refused to comply fled from Saxony to Missouri and joined with other Lutherans to form the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod. This denomination was organized in 1847 as the German Evangelical Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States.

Other Lutherans formed themselves into various synods, often locally and then merging with others. In 1982, the ELCA was formed by a merger of three other Lutheran denominations. (1) The American Lutheran Church was composed of predominantly German, Danish, and Norwegian Lutherans, with a geographical center in the Upper Midwest (some of its more conservative churches refused to join the ELCA and formed the American Association of Lutheran Churches). (2) The Lutheran Church in America was centered more on the East Coast, with roots back to colonial times and the earlier waves of German and Swedish immigration, along with some Finnish and Danish churches in the Midwest. (3) The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches was formed by 250 churches that left the LCMS after the LCMS maintained a conservative position on things like biblical inerrancy.

The three main Lutheran denominations in the USA today are the ELCA (~3.7 million), the LCMS (~2.1 million), the WELS (~380,000; Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod; centered in the Upper Midwest). The ELCA is generally liberal, while the LCMS and WELS are confessional. There are a number of other smaller denominations (e.g. AALC, AFLC).

Doctrine

Confessional Lutherans hold to many doctrines in common with us Presbyterians. They hold to core creedal doctrines and core Protestant doctrines like justification by faith alone, salvation by grace alone, and Scripture alone as the rule of faith and life. The LCMS and WELS have maintained biblical authority and the proclamation of the gospel against the inroads of liberalism. I have much appreciation for them and their work. 

Some Lutheran traditions (often those with Scandinavian roots) do not subscribe to the full Book of Concord, and thus have greater doctrinal diversity.

Concerning God’s sovereignty in salvation, Lutherans who hold to the Book of Concord basically affirm that fallen man is unable to will that which is truly good, that God unconditionally elects people unto salvation, and that he sovereignly and effectually calls the elect to salvation by his grace. But they deny limited atonement and the perseverance of the saints (they believe in the perseverance of the elect, but not of all believers). They object to “double predestination” (a debatable term even among the Reformed) and stress the need to be guided in life by God’s revealed will in his word (as we do too).

Lutherans who hold to the Book of Concord affirm the three uses of the law, although they can differ from the Reformed in emphasis (they also number the first two in reverse order). Some other Lutherans, like Gerhard Forde, do not teach the third use of the law.

Confessional Lutherans, like us, hold that the sacraments are means of grace, along with the word. They deny that the sacraments give grace by the outward act, and affirm that the promised things offered in the sacrament are only received by faith. The sacraments are used to strengthen our faith.

It seems that they usually assert that all baptized infants received what is promised in their baptism at that time, although I have not found this yet in their confessional documents. To be more precise, they believe that when an infant is baptized God creates faith in their hearts, a faith by which the child receives what is promised. This is also a faith that must be fed and strengthened, as they believe a person can fall away from faith. Thus, they do not believe that all baptized infants are elect, and they affirm the need to teach and encourage children to believe and repent and diligently use the means of grace. They do not believe that baptism is necessary for justification (as the Restorationists do). For example, if an outsider comes to faith, he is justified for Christ’s sake alone through faith alone right then, and thus is to be baptized. 

Confessional Lutherans, like us, deny that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice for sins and that the substance of the bread and wine turn into that of Christ’s body and blood. Unlike us, they believe that Christ’s body and blood are substantially united with the elements and received in the mouth by all who partake (although only to the benefit of those who receive it by faith). Rather than appealing to the work of the Spirit to explain how Christ’s body and blood are given to us in the Supper, they appeal to the ubiquity of Christ’s body and blood, arguing that in his glorified state his human nature can be in more than one location at the same time. Many of them only administer the Lord’s Supper to those who agree with the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (WELS is most strict, LCMS is pretty closed, and ELCA is wide open).

Worship

While some of their churches have adopted more contemporary styles, their worship is usually liturgical and dignified. They are known for their rich hymnody and music. While they do not worship images, they do not object to the presence of images of Christ (Reformed churches object to the images themselves). 

Church Government

Lutheranism does not have a distinct church government. Their church government varies, usually with a mix of congregational, presbyterian, and episcopal influences. They see the pastoral office as the only divinely ordained office, with churches free to have other officers like elders to help. Their view of the pastoral office is similar to the Reformed view, and historically their use of elders has been similar (although not quite as robust) to that in Reformed churches. The LCMS is composed of ministers and congregations, has regional districts and a synodical convention, and tends toward congregational government in their churches (e.g. excommunication is by the minister and the congregation).

Joy to the World: A Christmas Song

I have sometimes seen people dispute whether “Joy to the World” was meant to refer to Christ's first coming or to his second coming. The answer can be found in the writings of the hymn's author. While I had previously noticed the song's original title, I more recently noticed that Watts writes rather directly about what the song is about. Briefly put, the song was written about Christ's first coming and the kingdom he established then.

The song is a paraphrase of Psalm 98 written by Isaac Watts (1674-1748) entitled, "The Messiah's Coming and Kingdom." It was first published in Watts' The Psalms of David: imitated in the language of the New Testament, and apply'd to the Christian state and worship (1719). In that book, Watts wrote that he understood Psalms 96-98 to refer to “Christ's Incarnation, his setting up his Gospel-Kingdom to judge or rule the Gentiles, and the Judgment and Destruction of the Heathen Idols.” While he said that in some of his paraphrases of these Psalms he also made mention of Christ’s second coming due to the parallels, he explicitly notes that in his paraphrases of Psalm 98 he refers to what he understood to be the first and chief sense (i.e. Christ’s first coming and present reign).

You can find the book online here. With more context, here is his first comment regarding Psalms 96-98 (p. 248), 

In this and the two following Psalms The first coming of Christ into the World is represented in a Prophetic Style, as tho' he were coming the second time to the last Judgment: But that Christ's Incarnation, his setting up his Gospel-Kingdom to judge or rule the Gentiles, and the Judgment and Destruction of the Heathen Idols, is the true Design of these three Psalms, is evident from several Expressions in them and particularly because the Earth, the Fields, Sea, &c. are call'd to rejoice; whereas the final Judgment of the World is represented dreadfull to all Nature, and to the Nations of the Earth. See Rev. 17, and Rev. 20.11, and 2 Pet. 3.7, 10. Yet since this last Coming has some-thing in it Parallel to his first, I have in the different parts of the Psalms referr'd to Both. 

And this is his comment inserted in between his two paraphrases of Psalm 98 (the second of which being Joy to the World),

In these two Hymns which I have formed out of the 98th Psalm I have fully exprest what I esteem to be the first and chief Sense of the holy Scriptures, both in this and the 96th Psalm, whose Conclusions are both alike. 

I don't think you need to agree with his last argument for his interpretation (the contrast between the ways the comings are described) to agree with the interpretation. After all, all creation groans with hopeful expectation for Christ's return (Rom. 8:19-21). But not only do "several expressions in them" indicate a primary reference to Christ's first coming and the kingdom he then established, but this also makes sense from the perspective of the Psalmist. In agreeing with Watts, I would also point out that the second coming brings to a culmination what was established by his first coming and his current reign.

In this interpretation of Psalm 98, Watts agreed with the interpretations of fellow English nonconformists Matthew Poole (1624–1679) and Matthew Henry (1662-1714). Matthew Poole wrote, "The matter and scope of this Psalm is the same with the former, and is an evident prediction of the coming of the Messias, and of the blessed effects thereof. The psalmist exhorteth Jews, Gentiles, and all the creatures to praise God for his truth and salvation." And while Matthew Henry granted that the end of the Psalm may refer principally to the second coming, yet concerning the Psalm in general, he wrote,

This psalm is to the same purport with the Ps. 96:1–13 Ps. 97:1–12; it is a prophecy of the kingdom of the Messiah, the settling of it up in the world, and the bringing of the Gentiles into it. The Chaldee entitles it a prophetic psalm. It sets forth, I. The glory of the Redeemer, Ps. 98:1–3. II. The joy of the redeemed, Ps. 98:4–9. If we in a right manner give to Christ this glory, and upon right grounds take to ourselves this joy, in singing this psalm, we sing it with understanding. If those who saw Christ’s triumph thus, much more reason have we to do so who see these things accomplished and share in the better things provided for us, Heb. 11:40.

The Son of God took to himself human nature, being born of the virgin Mary, that he might be the last Adam, bringing life instead of death to the world, bringing blessing instead of curse. He was born to die for our sins and rise to life again, establishing his reign now in this earth among the nations of the earth by his word and Spirit. The light is shining more and more, and the darkness is passing away. "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8). The purpose and effect of Christ's incarnation give us ample reason to rejoice in it. 

For further reflection upon Joy to the World, here is a 4-minute video I made six years ago about this Christmas hymn. 

Restorationist

The next denominational tradition that we come to in this series is the Restorationist tradition. Restorationist denominations include Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Christian Churches.

The Restorationist movement arose in the early 1800s in Kentucky and western Pennsylvania amid the Second Great Awakening as an attempt to bypass denominational divisions and restore the original order of the early church. They discarded creeds and confessions and denominational names. Instead, they sought to affirm only the plain and simple doctrines of Scripture. One of their early slogans (ironically something of creed itself) was “We have no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible, no law but love, no name but the Divine.” Another one was “Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; and where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent.” As one early writer explained, “Henceforth, the plain and simple teaching of the Word of God itself was to be their guide. God himself should speak to them, and they should receive and repeat His words alone. No remote inferences, no fanciful interpretations, no religious theories of any kind, were to be allowed to alter or pervert its obvious meaning.”

The Restorationist movement is strongest in Kentucky, Tennessee, the southern Midwest, and the southern Great Plains. 

History

Two Restorationist groups were founded by two Presbyterian ministers, Thomas Campbell and Barton Stone. These groups merged in 1832 as the Christian Church/Disciples of Christ (later a group split off from them called the Churches of Christ). These churches gave up infant baptism and Calvinism and more, with some variety among them.

Barton Stone in Kentucky (Christian Church)

Barton Stone became a Presbyterian through the influence of James McGready and was ordained as a Presbyterian minister in the 1790s. But he soon began to question Calvinist doctrines (or had already begun to do so, subscribing to the doctrinal standards only as far as they are consistent with Scripture, rather than because they are consistent with Scripture).

Stone participated in the revivals and camp meetings that broke out around 1800 in Kentucky, including the Cane Ridge revival of 1801. Camp meetings originated from Presbyterian communion services, and one of the largest was the Cane Ridge revival in 1801. 18 Presbyterian ministers along with some Baptists and Methodists ministers preached to the people. 750 of those present received tokens to take Communion, but about 15,000 people were in attendance. It lasted a week (i.e. until food ran out). 

Much good was done through these revivals, despite weird excesses, but some of the energy was misdirected. In the midst of the excitement, holding to Calvinistic doctrines and Presbyterian qualifications for office seemed less important than evangelism. One group eventually formed the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. Another similar group of four ministers (including Stone) formed themselves into the Springfield Presbytery in 1803, independent of the Synod of Kentucky, after the synod censured a minister from deviating from the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Springfield Presbytery attracted 15 churches and then dissolved in 1804. But when it dissolved, the last six ministers produced a document, determining to be known only as Christians. Their followers would be the nucleus of the Christian Church, although all but one of Stone’s fellow signers either returned to the Presbyterian church or joined the Shakers. But it continued to gain followers and had about 12,000 people by 1830.

Barton Stone denied Calvinism, infant baptism, and the doctrine of substitutionary atonement (preferring a view more like Charles Finney’s moral influence theory). He also basically denied the doctrine of the Trinity (he seems to have denied the eternality of Christ and to have argued that the three persons are one in purpose and mind rather than in substance, similar to the later Mormons). These views did not necessarily represent the churches connected with him, as they were each independent, and he dropped his explanations of the Trinity and the atonement as he united with the Campbells.

Thomas and Alexander Campbell in Pennsylvania (Disciples of Christ)

Thomas Campbell (1763-1854) began as an Associate Presbyterian from northern Ireland in a context where there had been many strong divisions among splintering Presbyterians. The “Reformed Presbyterians” had remained separate from the Church of Scotland in 1690. In 1733, the Associate Presbyterians left the Church of Scotland. Then the Associate Presbyterians split in 1747 into the Burghers and Anti-Burghers over an oath required of the burgesses of towns. Both groups split again in the 1790s over the paragraph in their confession regarding church-state relations (WCF 23.3) into old light and new light. Thomas Campbell was a minister in the Old-Light Anti-Burgher Associate Presbyterians. These divisions were especially strong because each group insisted that it was the true church in the region and did not practice communion with the others (to recognize the church you left by communion with it would imply your own group was schismatic for maintaining separation from it).

While the Restorationist movement was unfortunate, I can sympathize with Thomas Campbell's desire for Christian unity in the context all these divisions. Unfortunately, he reacted to this situation in such as way as to swing to an opposite extreme and ironically led the formation of another denomination.

When Thomas moved from Ireland to western Pennsylvania he was initially received by the Associate Presbyterians there in 1807. When he began giving the Lord’s Supper to believers from other denominations, controversy broke out and he renounced the jurisdiction of the denomination in 1808-1809. He formed a Christian Association united by an Declaration and Address, sought ministerial communion with the mainline Presbyterian church, but after this was declined, they struck out on their own as an independent church in 1811. He was also joined by his son, Alexander Campbell, who would continue as a leader of the movement until his death in 1866.

In 1816, Alexander preached a sermon on the law before a group of Baptists, alienating the Baptists by arguing that the Old Testament as a whole (not simply the ceremonial law) was for the Mosaic dispensation and was not binding on Christians. “The Bible alone” became in essence, “the New Testament alone.” While Alexander objected to aspects of the Calvinist terminology for the Trinity, he was orthodox in substance on that doctrine, as well as on the atonement (that it not only reconciles man to God, but also God to man).

Walter Scott

Walter Scott was raised as a Presbyterian in Scotland and became convinced of Restorationist distinctives in America and became a noted evangelist connected with the Campbells. He was also noted for describing the gospel as six things, three from man and three from God: faith, repentance, and baptism; and the forgiveness of sins, gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life.

Relation to Mormonism

As the Unitarians came from the Congregationalists, and the Oneness Pentecostals from the Pentecostals, so the Mormons are the non-Trinitarian spin-off of the Restorationists (although even within Restorationism there were some with weak or anti Trinitarian views). Mormonism was another attempt to transcend denominational differences, to go back to the early church, and to find unity in a simpler doctrine. But unlike Stone and Campbell, it added new books of revelation and went much further from Scripture in various heretical ways. Alexander Campbell was one of Mormonism’s first critics as it drew away followers, and he accused Joseph Smith of stealing ideas from him and Walter Scott.

Union in 1832

At the beginning of 1832, in Lexington, KY, the Disciples of Christ and the Christian Church united under both names, Disciples of Christ/Christian Church.

Churches of Christ

This non-denominational denomination formed in 1832 split twice in the 1900s. In 1906, it split into the instrumental Disciples of Christ/Christian Church and the non-instrumental Churches of Christ (led by David Lipscomb). Around two decades later, due to the growth of liberalism in the Disciples of Christ, its more conservative churches stopped supporting the denominational missionary society. These independent churches became known as the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ. The non-instrumental Churches of Christ were strongest in the south, the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ were strongest in the north, and the Disciples of Christ/Christian Church were strongest further west.

What We Have in Common

Churches of Christ have a high view of biblical (NT) authority. They are generally more orthodox on things like the Trinity than Barton Stone originally was. Because their churches are basically independent, there is some variety, and some of their pastors are more like us. They were originally Postmillennial and are generally Amillennial today (not Pre-millennial). While they hold to the necessity of baptism for justification, they do believe that faith in Christ is necessary (baptism does not work automatically). Their local church government (preacher, elders, and deacons) bears some resemblance to the Presbyterian system on a local level, with government by the elders.

Where We Differ

They have a distinctive biblicist insistence on simple doctrines from explicit teachings, combined with a belief that the Old Testament, while inspired, is not binding in the Christian dispensation. We Presbyterians believe instead that all of Scripture is "given by inspiration of God to be the rule of faith and life" (WCF 1.2, cp. 2 Tim. 3:16) and that "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..." (WCF 1.6).  

They are generally weak on theology. While not as bad as Barton Stone, they can be weak on articulating doctrines like the Trinity and the atonement, often avoiding non-biblical terms. But not everything in Scripture is explicitly taught (as arguments in Scripture itself demonstrate). Clarity can require special terminology. Creeds unite the church in the shared confession of the faith, clarify the church's message, and provide clarity in maintaining standards and discipline against falsehood. We must confess what Scripture teaches.

They deny the "five points of Calvinism" and generally hold to some version of Arminianism (usually a version that is worse than the Wesleyan version). They deny hereditary depravity, unconditional election, irresistible grace (sometimes denying the concept of enabling grace), and the perseverance of the saints. But we assert that we fell in Adam and are so conceived in sin (Rom. 5, Ps. 51:5), and that God gave certain people to Christ to save, who are effectually drawn to Christ and saved in the end (John 6:37-40, 44-45), so that salvation is all of God's grace. 

Their idea of faith is not great. From what I have seen, it seems to me that their understanding of faith is sometimes too limited (simply assent to the Bible’s teachings) and sometimes too encompassing, with a murky border between faith and works.

They believe that baptism is necessary for salvation. As one statement says, “We connect with this grace-gift of God when by faith we surrender our lives at baptism.” It is not quite right to call it baptismal regeneration, because such a phrase assumes our understanding of regeneration. They would say a person should believe before being baptized, but deny that faith is a product of regeneration. Nor do they believe that baptism is a satisfaction or meritorious. It might be more accurate to call it baptismal justification by faith. They also believe that baptism ought to be by immersion. But we Presbyterians would point out that Abraham was justified by faith before he received any outward sign, and his experience is used as an example for us. Cornelius received the Spirit before being baptized. Baptism confirms as a seal. God does require a diligent use of the means of grace, but we are justified by faith alone, even before baptism.