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.

Notes on the 1788 American Revision of WCF 23.3

In 1788, the Synod of New York and Philadelphia made a few minor amendments to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and Larger Catechism (WLC): (1) the reference to the civil magistrate in chapter 20 was omitted, (2) the third paragraph of chapter 23 on church-state relations was mostly re-written, (3) the second paragraph of chapter 31 on calling church councils was rewritten and combined with the first paragraph, and (4) the phrase “tolerating a false religion” was omitted from the list of sins in WLC 109, and (5) in WLC 142 “depopulations” was changed to “depredation.” You can see the full 1788 version here.

The change to chapter 31 was a long time coming, since even when the Church of Scotland first adopted these standards in 1647, the General Assembly stated a scruple regarding its understanding of that chapter. Besides that change, the most important amendment was to the paragraph in chapter 23 on church-state relations. What follows here are some observations and historical notes regarding this amendment and the perspective of some of the members of that synod regarding the magistrate and religion. Others have written on the topic and what I write here is not meant to be comprehensive. Yet I hope it will be a helpful supplement to the discussion.

Overview

The new version of WCF 23.3 reflected the new multi-denominational situation, something that had developed between the 1640s and the 1780s. It also dropped statements that had become contested and it sought to clarify the statement to dispel rumors of a revival of persecution against other denominations by Presbyterians (fears of a Presbyterian takeover persisted from the time of the American Revolution through at least the election of 1800). The new statement affirmed that the magistrate was to be the nursing father of “the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest…” It affirmed that magistrates should protect the church and preserve its liberty and not interfere with or hinder the government and discipline of any denomination of Christians. It also noted that the persons and good name of all their people (including non-Christians) were to be protected by the magistrates against injury, even when offered upon pretense of religion or infidelity. Vigilante violence against others on religious grounds was a reality in that era, and was not to be tolerated. Likewise, all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies were to be protected by the magistrates from molestation or disturbance. The synod did not change 23.2’s statement that the magistrate ought especially to maintain "piety, justice, and peace" (Baptists omitted "piety" from the list), nor did they change WLC 191's statement that we pray that the church would be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate. The USA was to be a Christian country, but one in which all Christian denominations would receive equal protection and in which the magistrate would not run the internal affairs of any.

Matters of Faith

One of the additions made to WCF 23.3 was to say that civil magistrates may not "in the least, interfere in matters of faith." But what is meant by interfering in "matters of faith"?

It is important to note that the phrase "matters of faith" also shows up in WCF 20.2 (unchanged from the original version). There is also a related phrase in chapter 31 ("controversies of faith").

In WCF 20.2, the point of the phrase is that the conscience is free from the doctrines of men in matters of faith (i.e. what is to be believed). "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in anything, contrary to his Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship" (WCF 20.2).

In chapter 31 of the WCF, the point is that controversies of faith (i.e. doctrine) and cases of conscience are to be determined ministerially by church synods. "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience..." (31.2). 

These phrases were also used earlier in the 39 Articles (1571). Its 19th article explained that particular churches, like the Church of Rome, “hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.” Article 20 says that the church has “authority in Controversies of Faith…”

George Gillespie, one of the Scottish commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, agreed that “the determination and resolution from Scripture of controversies concerning the faith, the worship of God, the government of the church, cases of conscience” belonged to the church and “are not to be dispensed and administered by the civil magistrate.” Here his statement with more context from Aaron’s Rod Blossoming (1646), chapter 8:

There are two sorts of things belonging to the church. Some which are intrinsical, and belonging to the soul or inward man, directly and primarily. Such things are not to be dispensed and administered by the civil magistrate: I mean the word and sacraments, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the suspension or excommunication of church officers or members, the ordination or deposition of officers, the determination and resolution from Scripture of controversies concerning the faith, the worship of God, the government of the church, cases of conscience. These being in their nature, end, and use, merely spiritual, and belonging not to the outward man, but to the inward man or soul, are committed and entrusted to the pastors and other ruling officers of the church, and are not of civil and extrinsical, but of ecclesiastical and intrinsical cognisance and judgment. There are other things belonging to the church, which are extrinsical, and do properly belong to the outward man, and are common to the church with other human societies or corporations: things of this kind fall within the civil jurisdiction; for the churches of Christ, being societies of men and women, and parts of commonwealths, are accountable unto and punishable by the civil magistrate...

Gillespie’s full list is very similar to the revised first sentence of 23.3, "Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith."

What we might learn from this is that the American revision was not a radical change, and that this change had precedent at least among the Scottish commissioners to the original assembly, who also agreed with what was stated in the original version of the WCF. The amendment clarified the meaning by drawing upon the doctrines already in the Confession of Faith concerning the liberty of conscience and the duty of church government.

It is noteworthy that a member of the synod that made the revision in 1788, Ashbel Green, in a thanksgiving sermon given in 1795, made this statement distinguishing between the infidel’s cry against state interference in matters of religion (broadly considered) and his objection to state interference in matters of conscience.

But if a nation unite in public thanksgiving its public functionaries must designate the time. To this, again, the malignant hatred of infidelity to all that bears the appearance of piety, has stated an objection. The magistrate, it cries, ought not to interfere in matters of religion. In matters of conscience we allow that he ought not; but if we acknowledge a God at all, it is the magistrate’s duty to lead the people to adore him. (p. 18)

When they said that magistrates must not interfere in the least in matters of faith, Green and the rest of the synod did not mean that the magistrate must be religiously neutral, or non-religious, or abstain from addressing religious matters like sabbath breaking, blasphemy, or days of religious observance. The reference was more limited than that, a reference to interfering with the church's doctrine and belief.

Ashbel Green 

In that same thanksgiving sermon, Green was grateful that in America no one sect of Christians endeavored to control or dictate to the consciences of another sect (p. 23), each paying his homage to God and the Savior on the ground of common and equal privilege (p. 24). Notice his emphasis on intra-Christian conflict. One factor in the American revision was accounting for multiple denominations, applying chapter 26 of the WCF to the matter. At the same time, Green also exhorted magistrates and legislators to 

Inculcate reverence to God, obedience to his laws, the superintendance of his providence, and amenableness to his bar. Inculcate these sentiments by your own example, and by framing and executing laws for the discountenance of vice. Recognize these truths by days of religious solemnity. Show especially that they are truths which govern in your minds and which you dare not violate. Your maxims, morals and manners, form those of the people at large, and you will find, too late, that they are incapable of government, if these foundations of it be taken away or rendered unfound. Believe it, also, that the frowns of Heaven will ever rest on a nation openly impious and profane. (p. 43-44)

Green's reference to the discountenance of vice recalls the fact that in 1793, he and other clergy in Philadelphia had petitioned the state legislature concerning "the passing of a law against Vice and Immorality" (available here). In particular, they wrote

We represent, that the legislative interposition is, in our apprehension, peculiarly necessary to make some effectual provision for the orderly and religious observance of the Lord's day; for the prevention and punishment of the profanation of the name of God, and every species of impious imprecation ; for regulating and lessening the number of houses where intoxicating liquors are sold and used; for the suppression of all places of gaming and lewd resort; and for the enacting of a law to prevent theatrical exhibitions of every sort.

Green also preached a sermon on a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer in 1798 entitled, "Obedience to the Laws of God, the Sure and Indispensable Defense of Nations." Again, he spoke against the attempts of some to exclude religion from the state.

The very truth is, infidels first endeavour to exclude religion from the state, that then they may give the name of morality to any set of principles they may choose to adopt, and that thus, in the end, they may fully accomplish their wishes by getting rid of both.

He exhorted his congregation, 

Let us resolve in God's name and strength, to act as well as to pray. Let those who have power be conjured to use it for him from whom all power is derived and to whom they must solemnly account for the manner in which they employ it. Let each of us, in our proper places and stations, be earnest, resolute and persevering, in promoting the work of reformation.

Nursing Fathers 

Another addition to WCF 23.3 was the description of the magistrates as nursing fathers of the church. "Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord..." The phrase and concept is biblical (Is. 49:23, 60:10, 12, 16) and the phrase had long been used by Presbyterians. It is related to the Larger Catechism's teaching that we should pray that the church be "countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate" (WLC 191). Thomas Ridgey, in his commentary on the Larger Catechism published in 1731, used the language of nursing fathers to explain this phrase in WLC 191,

We are to pray that the church may be encouraged by civil magistrates; that their government may be subservient to Christ's spiritual kingdom; that, according to God's promise, "kings may be" its "nursing fathers, and their queens" its "nursing mothers;" that by this means the church may have peace and safety...

Chad Van Dixhoorn notes the use of this phrase by Westminster divine, John Arrowsmith, and comments:

The phrase "nursing fathers" may have become Presbyterian code for a doctrine of an established church supported by civil magistrates, an arrangement that Arrowsmith and the great majority of assembly members favored, in keeping with the tradition of Calvin's Geneva. ("John Arrowsmith: A Theological Life" in Arrowsmith, Plans for Holy War, p. 25)

The 1788 revisions to the Westminster standards carried on this tradition, with provision for a multi-denominational church, emphasizing that the magistrate is duty-bound to the whole church, not just a denomination; and with greater clarity on the church’s liberty from interference in matters of faith. 

The synod did not forget to omit the phrase in WLC 191 (as some have speculated), but instead they actually added language in WCF 23.3 that referred to the same concept. This is another example of how the new language was an application of what was already in the standards.

George Duffield

Another Presbyterian pastor in Philadelphia that was a member of the synod that made the revisions in 1788 was George Duffield. He had served as a chaplain to Continental Congress and the military, and would be the first clerk of the General Assembly in 1789. Earlier in 1776, as Pennsylvania was preparing its state constitution, Rev. Duffield wrote a paper arguing for a provision that the principal officers of state be required to profess Christianity. He appended a note to his paper in September, 1787 reaffirming what he had written.

Why was he reviewing the paper in 1787? Not only was the Constitutional Convention wrapping up in his city, but earlier that year he had participated in his synod’s action to propose minor changes to its Confession of Faith on church-state issues that would be approved in 1788.

His basic thesis in his paper was, “that they may, and ought to require a profession of christianity in general, such as a belief of the Holy Scriptures, to be of Divine authority, and salvation by Jesus Christ, of every of their principal officers of state, previous to their admission”.

Pennsylvania did adopt such a requirement in its Constitution in 1776. In fact, a watered down version of it is still in Pennsylvania's constitution (although it is no longer enforced due to a Supreme Court decision). You can read his paper here: "Who Should Be Our Rulers?" 

In the midst of his argument, Duffield argues that the divine authority of Scripture should be recognized by the civil constitution, and he gives sabbath laws as an example of a good fruit of such recognition. He goes on to say, 

The truth of the case is, it is impossible to run a line of distinction between things civil and religious, so as to separate the one from the other, in any civilized State. They are in many respects what God and nature have joined together, and man may not put asunder. The only culpable connection is when, instead of establishing purely the inspired standard, human creeds and compositions are established, and an unequal and equally unjust prerogative or preference is given to any one sect or denomination over or beyond others, or when any pains or penalties are inflicted for religious sentiments, in no wise interfering with the common good and safety of the State.

John Witherspoon

One of the most famous Presbyterian ministers in America in the late 1700s was John Witherspoon. He had moved from Scotland to become the president of Princeton College. He served in the Continental Congress and signed the Declaration of Independence. I have written more about him here. 

In 1782, he preached a sermon on a day of thanksgiving (he had drafted the proclamation as a member of Congress and he preached on the day as a minister of the gospel). You can read the sermon here, beginning on page 61. Near the end of that sermon, he included an exhortation for those vested with civil authority. “Those who are vested with civil authority, ought also with much care, to promote religion and good morals among all under their government.” He specifies several ways in which they are to do this "further than the impartial support and faithful guardianship of the rights of conscience." First, he teaches that civil rulers are to do this by their own example. Secondly, he goes on to say, 

But I cannot content myself with this. It is certainly the official duty of magistrates to be "a terror to evil doers, and a praise to them that do well." That society will suffer greatly, in which there is no care taken to restrain open vice by exemplary punishment. It is often to be remarked, in some of the corrupt governments of Europe, that whatever strictness may be used, or even impartiality in rendering justice between man and man, yet there is a total and absolute relaxation as to what is chiefly and immediately a contempt of God. Perhaps a small trespass of a poor man on property, shall be punished by a vindictive party, or punished by a tyrannical judge with the utmost severity; when all the laws against swearing, sabbath-breaking, lewdness, drunkenness and riot, shall be a dead letter, and more trampled upon by the judges themselves, than by the people who are to be judged. Those magistrates who would have their authority both respected and useful, should begin at the source, and reform or restrain that impiety towards God, which is the true and proper cause of every disorder among men. O the short-sightedness of human wisdom, to hope to prevent the effect, and yet nourish the cause! Whence come dishonesty and petty thefts? I say, from idleness, sabbath-breaking, and uninstructed families. Whence come deceits of greater multitude, and debts unpaid? From sloth, luxury, and extravagance. Whence come violence, hatred, and strife? From drunkenness, rioting, lewdness, and blasphemy. It is common to say of a dissolute liver, that he does harm to none but himself; than which I think there is not a greater falsehood that ever obtained credit in a deceived world. Drunkards, swearers, profane and lascivious jesters, and the whole tribe of those who do harm to none but themselves, are the pests of society, the corruptors of the youth, and in my opinion, for the risk of infection, thieves and robbers are less dangerous companions.

In his lectures, he similarly addresses "how far the magistrate ought to interfere in matters of religion." He notes the same three things, that the magistrate (1) "ought to encourage piety by his own example, and by endevouring to make it an object of public esteem," (2)  "ought to defend the rights of conscience, and tolerate all in their religious sentiments, that are not injurious to their neighbors" (he refers to Popery as an example of a sect deemed by some to hold tenets subversive of society), and (3) "may enact laws for the punishment of acts of profanity and impiety." He further notes that some argue that "the magistrate ought to make public provision for the worship of God, in such manner as is agreeable to the great body of the society; though, at the same time, all who differ from it are fully tolerated. And, indeed, there seems to be a good deal of reason for it..." (The Works of John Witherspoon, vol. VII, p. 120-121). The idea of public provision for the worship of God was a debatable issue among American Presbyterians, as can be seen by the opposition offered by Hanover Presbytery in Virginia to a bill for the public funding of religion. 

Charles Nisbet

One of John Witherspoon's friends from Scotland was Charles Nisbet. Like Witherspoon, Nisbet had also been a minister in the Church of Scotland before moving to America to become a college president. Nisbet arrived later than Witherspoon, moving to America in 1785 to become the president of Dickinson College, serving there until his death in 1804, lecturing on subjects like moral philosophy, public law, and theology, and preaching at the Presbyterian church in town (Nisbet's lectures were written and are preserved, but it seems that many of them have not been published). Like Witherspoon, Nisbet was one of the members of the synod that made the American revision in 1788 (in the synod's minutes, his name is spelled Nesbit). Around the same time, in a lecture he gave April 10, 1789, Nisbet criticized the US Constitution, which he generally supported, for not providing for the public support of religion (Smylie, "Charles Nisbet: Second Thoughts on a Revolutionary Generation"). He also criticized it for its neglect of God in a letter to Rev. William Marshall (Dec 23, 1799), "In forming our Constitution & even in wording our Oaths, no regard was paid to God, & we can not wonder if he should cast us off in our Distress, & bid us cry to Liberty & equality, the Idols that we have made & served." 

Later Presbyterians like Joshua McIlvaine, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge would seek to remedy this lack of an explicit recognition of God in the US Constitution, participating in the National Reform Association (NRA) and its campaign for a proposed constitutional amendment to that effect in the late 1800s (James Thornwell wrote a paper arguing for a similar amendment to the CSA Constitution). I have taught about these later movements in this lesson: A Christian Nation?. The NRA's proposed amendment was to begin the Constitution with these words,

We, the people of the United States, recognizing the being and attributes of Almighty God, the Divine Authority of the Holy Scriptures, the law of God as the paramount rule, and Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Savior and Lord of all, in order to form a more perfect union... 

The Life of William Bradford

William Bradford was the governor of Plymouth for over 30 years and he wrote the most significant history of the colony’s founding, Of Plymouth Plantation. He led the colony with skill and wisdom and he recorded its story for future generations. He was in the best place to write a history, for he had been part of the Pilgrim story from the beginning, and he played a leading part in their lives in the new world. As one biographer has put it, “To [William Bradford], as to most Puritan historians, the writing of history was in the nature of a sacred obligation, for it was the recording of God’s providence as it worked itself out in human affairs” (Perry D. Westbrook, William Bradford). 

Bradford had seen God’s mercy and power at work in the lives of the Pilgrims, as well as in his own life. In some ways, Bradford was an unexpected instrument. He had been weak, despised, and suffering before he came to strength and leadership and prominence. And yet, in these ways, God had providentially prepared him for his calling and blessed the whole colony with a wise and godly magistrate who knew where they came from and where they intended to go. 

Early Life in England

At the end of his life, he wrote a poem about his life. It begins,

From my years young in days of youth,
God did make known to me his truth,
And call'd me from my native place
For to enjoy the means of grace
In wilderness he did me guide,
And in strange lands for me provide.
In fears and wants, through weal and woe,
As pilgrim passed I to and fro…

William Bradford was born in 1590 (1589 O.S.) in Austerfield, Yorkshire, baptized on March 19th. His early years were filled with loss. In 1591, his father died. In 1594 his mother remarried and William was sent to live with his grandfather. In 1596 his grandfather died, and William returned to his mother. In 1597 his mother died and he was sent to be cared for by his uncles, Robert and Thomas. By this point, he was only 7.

William was from a line of yeoman farmers, and his uncles put him to the work of herding sheep. But during this time, William was afflicted by a long sickness. He later saw this as providentially keeping him from the vanities of youth and preparing him for what was to come. It led him to read more, books like Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, Erasmus’ The Praise of Folly, and the Geneva Bible.

The reading of Scripture at about 12 years of age made a strong impression on him, and he became known as a Puritan, enjoying the ministry of Richard Clifton, a Puritan minister in the established church a few miles away in Babworth. As Cotton Mather later said of Bradford: “Nor could the wrath of his uncles, nor the scoff of his neighbors, now turned upon him, as one of the Puritans, divert him from his pious inclinations” (Magnalia Christi Americana). Bradford also met William Brewster, of nearby Scrooby, who became a mentor and father figure to him (Brewster was 23 years older than Bradford).

As a teenage, Bradford studied the question of whether it was right to remain in the parish assembly or whether he should join a separatist congregation that practiced God’s ordinances in their purity. He decided that he must separate, and did so, despite the rage of his friends. Perhaps he first joined the separatist congregation in Gainsborough, but then he joined the closer one that formed in Scrooby, formally organized in 1606 with Richard Clifton as its pastor and John Robinson as its teacher (later William Brewster became its ruling elder).

This separatist congregation soon attracted the hostility of the authorities, and so they tried to leave England. Some of them were caught trying to leave in 1607 and imprisoned, including 17-year-old William Bradford. By 1608, he and the others had made it to the Netherlands.

Becoming an Adult in the Netherlands

In Amsterdam, William Bradford learned from and served a Frenchman in the working of silks. The French were rather skilled in the textile industry, and it was Huguenot refugees from France who later brought improvements to this industry to northern Ireland and elsewhere. William Bradford also enjoyed the fellowship and worship of the separatist church and moved in with the Brewster family and stayed with them until he got married in 1613.

After about two years in Amsterdam, the church moved to Leyden to avoid being drawn into conflicts in other separatist congregations. In Leyden, Bradford worked as a fustian-worker (a weaver of a heavy cotton-linen fabric used for men’s clothing). He knew many languages: English, Dutch, French, Latin, and Greek. Later in life, he also learned Hebrew to read the Old Testament in its original language.

In 1611, Bradford turned 21 and was able to receive his inheritance. He converted his estate into money and set himself up in Holland with a house and loom of his own. He also probably helped the church buy a building for a meeting space. In 1613, he married Dorothy May, the daughter of an elder of another separatist church. Their son John was born in 1617.

He and his wife joined the group that set out for the new world in 1620, leaving behind their 3-year-old son in the care of others until it was safer for him to come over.

Governor in Plymouth

When they arrived in the new land, William Bradford signed the Mayflower Compact and went on several expeditions to explore the land. On the first expedition, he was caught by a deer trap and hanged upside down until his friends were able to free him. Tragically, his first wife died by falling overboard while Bradford was away on one of these expeditions.

In that first winter he was struck with a great pain in his hip and collapsed, and it was thought he would not last the night. He was cared for by Captain Standish and Elder Brewster, two of only six or seven who remained well enough to care for the others. While Bradford was sick, the common house where he was staying caught fire, but he and the others in it escaped.

When Governor Carver died in April, the 31-year-old Bradford was unanimously chosen to be the new governor of the colony, even though he had not entirely recovered from his illness. He would be re-elected 31 times to one-year terms, serving as governor every year of his remaining life except for five. As Cotton Mather later remarked, “He had, with a laudable industry, been laying up a treasure of experiences, and he had now occasion to use it: indeed, nothing but an experienced man could have been suitable to the necessities of the people.”  

Marriage and Family

In 1623, William Bradford married a second time. His second wife was a widow with two children named Alice. It appears he had courted her by letter before she arrived, so that they married soon after her arrival. Their wedding was attended by Massasoit, his queen, four other kings, and 120 of his men. These guests also brought three or four bucks and a turkey for the feast. The colonists and Indians feasted together and the Indians danced for their English friends. William and Alice went on to have two sons and a daughter.

His Time as Governor

On aspect of being governor was maintain good foreign relations with the native tribes. Several examples can be produced from just his first year in office. He sent out a party to rescue Squanto from Corbitant, a Wampanoag sachem. He sent another party to establish the fur trade with the Massachusetts. He also made a show of strength when the Narragansetts sent a threatening message of arrows tied in a snakeskin. Bradford sent back powder and balls in that snakeskin with the message: “that if they had rather have warre then peace, they might begine when they would; they had done them no wrong, neither did they fear them, or should they find them unprovided.” He also enforced a policy of only obtaining lands from the Indians by voluntary purchase.

Bradford also had to deal with debt and property. Plymouth colony was originally organized as a joint-stock company. All property belonged to the company and was held in common. The distribution of property and debts had the potential to provoke jealousy in the colony. In 1622, when new comers arrived who did not share the burden of the company, Bradford wisely came up with an arrangement to keep the peace. In 1623, he consented to a division of the land and oversaw its distribution, so that each household could work its own land and simply pay a tax. In 1627, Bradford oversaw the end of the joint-stock company by the settlers purchasing the colony from the London merchants. Each “purchaser” received shares of the debt and a certain amount of land to own. To make repaying the debt easier, a group of 11 men (including Bradford) known as the “undertakers” took on the obligation to pay the colony’s debt and received a monopoly on trade with the Indians. The undertakers were also able to arrange for the transport of the remaining Leyden separatists. It took them 14 years to be free of the debt. Further skill was required for Bradford and his assistants to oversee the distribution of land to more newcomers and eventually to turn this power over from the original purchasers to all the freemen of the colony in 1641.

There were also troublesome men who had to be dealt with. The most serious threat came early on in 1623-1624 with the arrival of two men, the hypocritical minister John Lyford and the hotheaded John Oldham. They pretended friendship, but worked secretly to pit newcomers against the established leadership, and to pit those in England against the separatists in Plymouth. Bradford intercepted their slanderous letters to England and produced copies of them at the right time so that these men were exposed. Oldham had already mistreated Captain Standish, and when the letters were produced, Lyford was silenced while Oldham tried to lead an uprising. They were banished from the colony (they later learned that Lyford had a scandalous past that further exposed his wretched character).

Religion in the colony was another important matter. William Bradford rejoiced to hear of the downfall of the bishops in England during the time of the English Civil War. Yet he was distressed to see a rise in groups that followed errors. Late in life he wrote a poem on this theme, writing against the Familists, Ranters, Seekers, Levelers, Quakers, Anabaptists, Anti-Trinitarians, Arminians, Roman Catholics, and English Bishops, with an appeal to the Presbyterians to join with the Congregationalists in opposing these errors. Some of these groups even made it to his beloved Plymouth colony. While Plymouth colony was rather moderate compared to the other Puritan colonies with respect to church-state relations and in tolerating disagreement, Bradford knew that the governor was called to be a nursing father to the church and was to support and nourish religion. He had learned from the writings of Peter Martyr Vermigli that both tables of the law were committed to the power of the magistrate, who was to require the people to live well and virtuously. In 1645, a petition was presented to the General Court “To allow and maintaine full and free tolerance of religion to all men that would preserve the Civill peace”. Bradford argued against it and used his position as governor to keep the petition from coming to a vote. In 1655, he threatened to resign as governor unless the General Court took speedy action to “remedy the neglect of competent maintenance for the ministry and the failure to take measures for the suppression of error” (Langdon, Pilgrim Colony, p. 67). A law was passed that ensured a minister’s support by his congregants if they obstinately refused to fulfill their duty. In 1656, at the last General Court that Bradford attended, a Quaker was found guilty of disturbing public worship and of slander and was sentenced to be banished after the winter was over.

His Writings

Bradford had reason to be worried over the religious unity, orthodoxy, and piety of the colony, but not all his efforts were political. He also put pen to paper to leave behind a testimony for future generations.

Between 1630 and 1650, he wrote Of Plymouth Plantation. In this book, he traced the history of the colony from its beginnings in the congregation at Scrooby all the way to 1647, unto the praise of the Lord who had shown his mercy and power. This book remained unpublished, but it was used by other early historians of New England like Bradford’s nephew Nathaniel Morton, who copied portions from Bradford in his book New England’s Memorial. Bradford’s book was kept in Boston, taken by the British in 1776, and was rediscovered in London in 1855.

Bradford also wrote three “dialogues” (1648, 1652) to pass on the vision of the founders to the younger generation, as well as a number of other poems (1650-1657).

His Death

Finally, in 1657, after telling his friends of the comfort he had experienced from the Spirit, he died on May 9th, in the 69th year of his age. His He had done his part and he left the work to future generations.

We have reason to be thankful for what God did through William Bradford. We should also listen to Bradford’s history and exhortation as we press on in our day. 

His will and the inventory of his belongings (including many of his books) at his death can be found here. In his will, he wrote, "In speciall I Commend to you a little booke with a blacke cover wherin there is a word to Plymouth a word to Boston and a word to New England with sundry usefull verses". Here is the word to New England that he mentioned:

A Word to New England, by William Bradford

Oh New England, thou canst not boast;
Thy former glory thou hast lost.
When Hooker, Winthrop, Cotton died,
And many precious ones beside,
Thy beauty then it did decay,
And still doth languish more away.
Love, truth, goodness, mercy and grace—
Wealth and the world have took their place.
Thy open sins none can them hide:
Fraud, drunkenness, whoredom and pride.
The great oppressors slay the poor,
But whimsy errors they kill more.
Yet some thou hast which mourn and weep,
And their garments unspotted keep;
Who seek God's honor to maintain,
That true religion may remain.
These do invite, and sweetly call,
Each to other, and say to all;
Repent, amend, and turn to God,
That we may prevent his sharp rod.
Yet time thou hast; improve it well,
That God's presence may with ye dwell.

 

Pentecostal and Charismatic

The sixth denominational tradition we come to in this series is the Pentecostal and Charismatic tradition. The Charismatic movement of the mid-1900s came from the Pentecostal movement of the early 1900s, which in turn had developed from the Holiness movement in the Wesleyan tradition of the late 1800s. Pentecostals usually hold to many Wesleyan distinctives and have their own denominations. Charismatics are a broader and more diverse category and can be found within other denominations and non-denominational churches.

What is most distinctive of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches is the belief in and practice of speaking in tongues (or glossolalia) as a current manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In general, Pentecostals will say that all those baptized in the Spirit will speak in tongues (differing among themselves whether this baptism is a first, second, or third work of grace), while Charismatics will say that some who are baptized in the Spirit will speak in tongues. Additionally, both are distinguished by a belief in and practice of gifts of prophecy and healing today. They are generally credo-baptist and premillennial.

A minority of Pentecostals (roughly 10%) are not Trinitarian. They are known as Oneness Pentecostals. One of the largest Oneness Pentecostal denominations is the United Pentecostal Church International (their headquarters is in Weldon Spring, MO and their college and seminary is in Wentzville, MO).

History

Noteworthy figures in this tradition include Charles Parham, William J. Seymour, Aimee Semple McPherson, Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, Chuck Smith, John Hagee, and Paula White.

Charles Parham - He began as a Methodist minister. He opened Bethel Bible College in Topeka and in 1900 he and his students sought the baptism of the Spirit, expecting the gift of tongues as the sign of such baptism. Eventually, one of the students began to “speak in tongues” an hour before the new century after he laid hands on her. The experience spread. The college closed, and he moved around the region, establishing a Bible school in Houston in 1905. His influence declined after he was charged with sodomy in 1907.

William J. Seymour - He began as a student of Parham. He was called to pastor a Nazarene church in Los Angeles, which then rejected his teachings on the baptism of the Spirit (he had taught that those who had not spoken in tongues had not been baptized by the Spirit). As he led a small group that became the Apostolic Faith Gospel Mission, people began to speak in tongues, starting the Azusa Street Revival. It went on continually for three years, attracting many people who went out to spread the teaching and experience to the world.

Church of God - The Church of God denomination was founded gradually from 1886 to 1907 as a holiness church in the Southeast. Instances of speaking in tongues had occurred before the Azusa Street Revival, but it took on greater significance due to the influence of that revival and its teachings, and the Church of God became a Pentecostal denomination headquartered in Cleveland, TN. It has 9.2 million members worldwide and perhaps around 900,000 members in the USA. There are many related denominations with the same name or similar names, like the Church of God (Huntsville), the Church of God in Christ (with predominately African-American membership), and the Church of God of Prophecy.

Assemblies of God - The Assemblies of God was founded in 1914 in Hot Springs, AR by those in the Apostolic Faith Movement, Chicago Pentecostals, and CMA Pentecostals. Its headquarters is in Springfield, MO. Its General Council condemned Oneness Pentecostalism (e.g. UPCI) in 1916. It has a mixture of congregationalist and presbyterian government. Its four core beliefs are Salvation, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (tongues being the sign of it), Divine Healing, and the Second Coming of Christ, and it lists 16 doctrines in its Fundamental Truths.

International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (aka The Foursquare Church) - The Foursquare Church was founded as an evangelical Pentecostal denomination by Aimee Semple McPherson in 1923 in Los Angeles. The term refers to the “foursquare gospel” of Jesus as Savior, Healer, Baptizer with the Holy Spirit, and Soon Coming King. Before its founding, McPherson had been an evangelist in the Assemblies of God. She was a celebrity preacher that used mass media, led a mega church, and conducted faith healing demonstrations.

Oral Roberts - Oral Roberts is an example of a Charismatic televangelist. He promoted Prosperity Gospel theology and “seed-faith” - “planting a seed” by giving in faith, expecting a miracle. He was a minister in the Pentecostal Holiness Church (1936-1968) and then the United Methodist Church (1968-1987), and then independent (1987-2009). He founded Oral Roberts University in Tulsa, OK. Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, and Ted Haggard attended Oral Roberts University.

Charismatic Movement - In the 1960s, Pentecostal ideas arose within existing denominations (e.g. Anglican, Methodist, Roman Catholic, etc) without necessarily causing people to leave them. And rather than equating the baptism of the Spirit to speaking in tongues, speaking in tongues was seen as just one gift of the Spirit.

Calvary Chapel - Calvary Chapel churches began with Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, CA led by Chuck Smith, which broke away from the Foursquare Church and became the hub of the “Jesus movement” (e.g. the Jesus people). They led the way in rock-style contemporary Christian music. They also emphasized verse by verse expository preaching. They hold to biblical inerrancy and evangelical theology while holding to the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a second experience, with tongues and prophecy as among the current gifts of the Spirit, to be carefully used. They do not ordain women. Their churches are basically independent and their pastors are not accountable to anyone but God. The Vineyard Movement sprung from a couple Calvary Chapel churches.

What We Have in Common

With many Pentecostals and Charismatics, such as those in the Assemblies of God and Calvary Chapel, we share a belief in the Trinity, Christ, inspiration of Scripture, sin, repentance and faith, and that we are saved by grace through faith on account of the death and resurrection of Christ. Most retain at least a basic practice of baptism and the Lord's supper. We can appreciate their zeal for evangelism and a recognition of the supernatural in a materialistic age.

Where We Differ

Some of these churches are very fringy, even cultish, especially those that emphasize prosperity gospel, faith healing, and unaccountable self-appointed leadership. Some of them simply do not preach the gospel, even if they do not explicitly reject it. Some Pentecostal churches (e.g. UPCI) are not Trinitarian, and are thus not Christian.

Even in the case of the better churches of this tradition, we differ with their distinctives concerning the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the continuing gifts of speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing (although we do recognize God’s providence and his freedom to work with, against, above, and without means). We also differ with prosperity gospel teachings like seed-faith, word of faith, and the like.

Concerning Pentecost

The outpouring of the Spirit on Pentecost (Acts 2) inaugurated a new era, not a second work of grace in the life of the believer. It was a unique, transitional event. The Spirit was given in a new way, and going forward, this baptism of the Spirit would be received by all believers (1 Cor. 12:13). We are filled with the Spirit in our baptism by the Spirit, and continue to be filled with the Spirit.

The gift of tongues was given to the whole church on Pentecost, but after the initial outpouring, it was given as a gift to some members for the benefit of the church and a sign to unbelievers (1 Cor. 12, 14). It was the ability to speak foreign languages previously unknown to the speaker, not the free vocalization passed off as tongues speaking today.

The significance of speaking in many languages was that the new covenant church would include all nations. This was a joy to believing Jews, but it was a judgment against those who rejected the gospel (1 Cor. 14, Is. 28:11-12). The gift of tongues ceased after the apostolic age since it marked that period of transition and what it symbolized has been fulfilled. The church was established by the apostles among the nations, so that the church does speak the languages of the nations.

Another reason the gift of tongues has ceased is that the revelation of the gospel given through the apostles and prophets has been delivered to the church and is recorded in Scripture (Eph. 2:19-21, 3:5, Heb. 1:1-2, 2:1-4). Their work was accomplished, and so no additional revelation is given. Since revelation is complete, and speaking in tongues was a form of revelation from God, therefore speaking in tongues has ceased. Also, the “sign gifts” like the gift of healing, which confirmed the word being revealed, also ceased. 

I have written more about Pentecost, tongues, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit here:

Pentecost (Part 1): A New Era

Pentecost (Part 2): Tongues

Pentecost (Part 3): Abiding Effects

Methodist and Holiness

The Methodist and Holiness tradition, the fifth denominational tradition in this series, originally developed as a renewal movement within the Anglican Church, emphasizing evangelism, conversion, practical religion, and holiness, with Arminian and “complete sanctification” distinctives. They prospered in the revivals of the 18th and 19th centuries, utilized methods like camp meetings, as well as lay preachers and circuit riders. They remained episcopal in government (with deacons, elder/minister, presiding elder/district superintendent, and bishop/superintendent).

(The Welsh Methodists remained Calvinist rather than Arminian, but they eventually became identified as a Presbyterian, and in America they merged with the PCUSA in 1920.)

History

John Wesley (1703-1791) and Charles Wesley (1707-1788)

• Both were Anglican ministers in England.
• Having begun a small club at Oxford, the “Holy Club,” and been challenged by German Pietists, they had heart-warming experiences in 1738 in which they became assured of their justification by faith.
• In 1739 they began following George Whitefield’s example of preaching outdoors to crowds and an itinerant ministry. Yet, they disagreed with Whitefield concerning Calvinism (he was for it and they were against it).
• While they formed societies that met for mutual encouragement and accountability, and approved lay preachers, they remained in the Church of England. The class meetings of their societies were additional to regular church services. Methodists in England only became distinct from the Church of England after John Wesley’s death.

Francis Asbury (1745-1816) and the Methodist Episcopal Church

• Asbury was sent to America in 1771.
• The Methodist Episcopal Church was founded in the USA in 1784, with its first ordained officers ordained by John Wesley. Its first two bishops were Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury.
• Asbury worked tirelessly to lead the MEC and to spread the gospel to the west, traveling an average of 6,000 miles a year in his itinerant ministry.

Peter Cartwright (1785-1872) and the Second Great Awakening

• Converted at a camp meeting in KY (1801), ordained by Asbury (1806), a presiding elder (1812).
• The Second Great Awakening covered a series of revivals from 1800 through the 1830s. During this time, the Methodists experienced incredible growth, becoming the largest denomination in the USA in 1840.
• Cartwright moved to Illinois and became the presiding elder of his district and remained an active circuit rider throughout his 400-mile long district.

Divisions

• In 1816, the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) was organized by Richard Allen.
• In 1830, the Methodist Protestant Church (MPC) was formed over the issue of lay representation.
• In 1845, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South (MPCS) was formed due to a dispute over a bishop who owned slaves.

Related Groups and the Holiness Movement

• The mid-1800s saw the rise of the holiness movement, a renewed emphasis and further development of the doctrine of complete sanctification in Methodism.
• The Salvation Army began with the Booths in England in the late 1800s with an emphasis on street evangelism, help to the poor, and a military-style organization (without sacraments).
• The Church of the Nazarene was formed in 1908 as the union of several holiness groups that had spun off the Methodist churches. It was strongly Wesleyan, allowed for women’s ordination, and dropped infant baptism.
• The United Brethren were German pietists, similar to the Methodist but from a German background. Of the first two prominent leaders, one was Mennonite and the other was Reformed. 

United Methodist Church: its founding, its struggles, its division

• In 1939, the MEC, MECS, and MPC reunited to form the Methodist Church.
• In 1968, the Methodist Church united with the Evangelical United Brethren Church to form the United Methodist Church.
• From 2019 to the present, the United Methodist Church has slowly divided, especially over the issue of sexual morality. Many conservative Methodist churches have left the UMC to form and join the Global Methodist Church, while others have simply become independent. 

What We Have in Common

With non-liberal Methodists, we Presbyterians have in common doctrines of God, Christ, Scripture, the moral law, original sin (at least theoretically), doctrine of justification (by faith alone, on account of Christ’s imputed righteousness alone, distinct but not separate from sanctification), infant baptism, and the sacraments as means of grace. While they are Arminian, their version of Arminianism is better on original sin and on justification than that of the early Arminians (the Remonstrants).

We can appreciate their zeal for evangelism and holiness, their doctrine of justification, and their lively hymns (although we often use them with a few minor edits).

Where We Differ

Our main differences with traditional Methodism are with its:

• Wesleyan Arminianism (their belief in general prevenient grace, their denial of unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints).
• Complete sanctification (their teaching to expect it by faith, as you are, and now).
• Church government (their government is generally episcopal).
• General tendency to downplay doctrine and overplay or misuse experience.
• Tendency to impose extra-biblical impositions for holiness (e.g. abstinence from alcohol).

Scripture speaks of total depravity as a practical reality, only overcome by God's effectual calling of his elect (John 6:44-45, 8:46-47, 10:26, Rom. 8:7-9), not something weakened by prevenient grace (the idea that God gives grace to everyone enabling them to believe if they so choose). 

While God does sanctify those whom he justifies, delivering us from the dominion of sin, we do not simply receive complete sanctification by faith at any given point in this life. God works through us, renewing us more and more to holiness, in a process that begins at conversion and continues all this life (1 Cor. 7:1, 1 Peter 2:11, Rom. 7, Phil. 3:12).

Of course, with liberal Methodists, we have many more differences. 

Baptist

In this series on denominational traditions, we have thus far looked at the Reformed and Presbyterian, Anglican and Episcopal, and Congregationalist denominations. Today we come to the Baptists.

Overview
 

The Baptist tradition is a more radical congregationalism that rejects infant baptism. 

• Baptists hold to church membership on the basis of conversion, gathered churches formed by church covenants, church government by the congregation, and the autonomy of the local church (sometimes in associations).

• Baptists hold to the baptism of believers only and baptism by immersion only, and a stronger contrast between the Old and New Testaments than is held by Presbyterians.

• Baptists also generally support a greater separation of church and state than the other groups covered thus far.

• Baptists are divided on the issue of Calvinism vs. Arminianism (or, in their terms, Particular Baptists vs. General Baptists). While Particular Baptists (holding to the five points of Calvinism) were more prevalent in the past, General Baptists are more common today.

History

Notable Baptists include Thomas Helwys, Roger Williams, John Bunyan, Benjamin Keach, Isaac Backus, John Leland, John Gano, Adoniram Judson, James Boyce, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, Martin Luther King Jr., W.A. Criswell, Al Mohler, and Rick Warren.

Their relation to the Anabaptists of the 1500s is contested, both inside and outside Baptist circles. While perhaps inspired by, or manifesting similar tendencies as, the Anabaptists, the Baptists originated as a branch of English Puritan Congregationalism in the early 1600s.

Origins in the early 1600s.

1609 - A group of English separatists in Amsterdam under the leadership of John Smyth and Thomas Helwys repudiated their previous baptisms and were baptized upon profession of faith. They also adopted Arminian beliefs and became known as General Baptists. They adopted a confession in 1612. While Symth went on to seek membership among the Anabaptists, Helwys led a group back to England.

1630s - The first Particular Baptist church is founded, in London.

1638 - Roger Williams founds the first Baptist church in the colonies, in Providence, RI. Soon after, John Clarke founds a Baptist church in Newport, RI, securing a charter for RI in 1663.

1641 - A Particular Baptist church in England begins the practice of baptism by immersion.

Growth and maturation in 17th century England.

1644 - The 1st London Baptist Confession is written. Baptists increase and enjoy more freedom during the interregnum under Cromwell.

1653 - John Bunyan is (re)baptized by immersion after his conversion. By 1655 he was preaching. He would become one of the most famous Baptist preachers and writers, especially due to his book, Pilgrims Progress.

1677/1689 - The 2nd London Baptist Confession (2LBC) is written and published, based on the Savoy Declaration, which was based on the Westminster Confession.

Baptists in America: growth in the Awakenings, disestablishment, and westward expansion.

1665 - The First Baptist Church of Boston is established.

Late 1690s - Some Baptists from Maine move to Charleston, SC, founding the first Baptist church in the South.

1742 - The Philadelphia Confession of Faith (the 2LBC with two additional chapters) is adopted by the Philadelphia Association. 

1730s-1740s - Baptists increase during the Great Awakening. A number of northern Baptist preachers start Baptist churches in VA and NC in the wake of the Great Awakening, such as former Congregationalists John Leland (MA), Shubal Stearns (MA), Daniel Marshall (CT), and former Presbyterian John Gano (NJ).

1789-1840 - Baptists experience much greater growth amid the disestablishment of Anglican and Congregationalist churches, the Second Great Awakening, and westward expansion.

Formation of denominations

1814 - The Triennial Convention is founded, especially for the sake of cooperation for missions (its full name was the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions). Its founding was prompted by appeals from Adoniram and Ann Judson, missionaries who had switched from Congregationalist to Baptist on their voyage to the mission field.

1833 - The New Hampshire Confession of Faith is written by Rev. John Newton Brown and agreed upon by the Triennial Convention.

1845 - Due to a dispute over slavery (whether slave-owners could be appointed as missionaries, which also impacted the ability to support missionaries in the South), Baptist churches in the South left the Triennial Convention and formed the Southern Baptist Convention.

1865 - Following the Civil War, many Black Baptists form their own churches and associations.

1895 - The National Baptist Convention, USA is founded by representatives of three African-American Baptist conventions (in 1961, a group split off this group called the Progressive National Baptist Convention).

1907 - The Triennial Convention is reorganized as the Northern Baptist Convention (it was later renamed American Baptist Churches USA in 1972).

1925 - The Southern Baptist Convention adopt the Baptist Faith and Message (a revision of the New Hampshire Confession of Faith). The SBC currently (2024) has 46,876 churches and a little over 12.7 million members, making it the largest Protestant denomination in the USA.

Other Baptist associations and traditions developed in the 1800s, such as Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Missionary Baptists, Free Will Baptists, General Baptists, and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists.

The conservative resurgence in the SBC.

Beginning around 1979, after growing concern about the direction of the denomination, there was a conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention, with strategic and successful efforts to elect conservatives and bring back denominational boards, agencies, and seminaries from liberalism. Issues included biblical inerrancy and opposition to abortion and women’s ordination. The Baptist Faith and Message was revised in 2000, including a complementarian statement on the family and statements opposing homosexuality and abortion.

What We Have in Common

As a comparison of the Westminster Confession of Faith and the 2nd London Baptist Confession shows, Baptists can have much in common with Presbyterians. In that comparison, we share the same doctrines of Scripture, God, God’s sovereignty, the five points of Calvinism, creation, providence, Christ, his benefits, faith, good works, assurance of salvation, the law of God, worship and the sabbath, the Lord’s Supper, the state of the dead, and the resurrection and last judgment.

But Baptists are diverse, and some do not hold all these things in common with us. Many today are Arminian, dispensational, pre-millennial, memorialist with regard to the Lord’s Supper, not very sabbatarian, and sometimes antinomian. Yet, even these Baptists will hold at least to the “five fundamentals” and the Trinity and justification by faith alone and Scripture alone. Also, some Baptists are liberal and have very little in common with us.

In general, we can appreciate Baptists for being evangelical and zealous, eager to maintain Biblical authority and the fundamentals of the faith and to spread the gospel.

Where We Differ

If we are comparing the WCF and 2LBC, the main differences have to do with covenant theology, church and church government, and baptism. There are also differences regarding civil government (omitting the maintenance of piety from the duties listed in paragraph 2, omitting paragraph 3, and rewriting the 4th in the chapter on civil government) and marriage (omitting one end of marriage - the increase of the church).

And so, in addition to the differences we would have with Congregationalists about church membership and government and the autonomy of the local church, we would also differ with the Baptists on the continuity of Old and New Testaments, and the mode, meaning, and subjects of baptism. Also, Baptists, like later Congregationalists, hold to only two offices: elder/pastor and deacon, rather than a threefold division of teaching elders, ruling elders, and deacon.

Baptists hold a variety of views on the covenants. They generally deny that the old covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace and would equate the covenant of grace with the new covenant (the more covenantal Baptists would say that the new covenant was progressively revealed in the Old Testament and was the only way anyone was saved). They say that the new covenant is only made with regenerate believers, and that the infants of believers were never included as such in the covenant of grace. But this does not do justice to the unity of God’s covenant with his people in the Old Testament or the continuity between the testaments and the people of God.

Baptists hold to the necessity of baptism by total immersion, while Presbyterians believe that total immersion is not necessary, but that the essential thing is washing with water, and that pouring or sprinkling is lawful, sufficient, and most expedient.

The 2LBC omitted "the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church" from the meaning of baptism (following Savoy), as well as it being "a sign and seal of the covenant of grace," but did add that it is a sign of fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection. The Baptist Faith and Message, following the New Hampshire Confession, adds that baptism is a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and the Lord’s Supper, and that baptism is “an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith” (as well as the believer’s spiritual death, burial, and resurrection). But describing the sacraments as “acts of obedience” makes as much sense as describing the gospel an “act of obedience.” Both are given by God to us, to be received by us. The sacraments are the gospel made visible, signs of Christ and his benefits.

Baptists would insist that only professing believers be baptized. “Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance” (2LBC). The way many would say it today is that baptism is a public declaration of an inward transformation. Most would say that baptisms of the unregenerate are invalid, so that if a person came to realize they were converted after their baptism they should be baptized again. But these positions remove the visible objectivity of the sacrament, downplay its function as a sign from God to man, and neglect God’s consistent inclusion of the children of believers in the administration of his covenant (Gen. 17, Deut. 29, Acts 2:38-39, 16:31-34, see more here).

An Invitation to Roman Catholics

I would like to take the time to invite my Roman Catholic friends and countrymen to “swim the Tiber” out of Rome and to the green pastures of historic Protestantism.

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. They worked to reform it according to Scripture, and this reformation extended to much of the existing church. John Calvin put it this way: “we have had no other end in view than to ameliorate in some degree the very miserable condition of the Church” (The Necessity of Reforming the Church, 1543).

The church is not built upon the bishop of Rome, but upon the apostles and prophets, with Christ being the cornerstone (Ephesians 2). We have the word of the apostles and prophets in Scripture, the only rule of faith and obedience now given by God to his church. It does not say that Peter appointed the bishop of Rome to bear his apostolic authority, but that Peter and the apostles faithfully delivered the message of Christ once to the saints - a message that is recorded in Scripture - ordaining all ministers to faithfully preach and teach it.

To leave the Roman church is also not to discard as useless the history of the church up to 1517. We confess the Nicene Creed every Sunday at our church. The two authors that John Calvin quoted the most outside of the Bible in his Institutes of the Christian Religion were Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux. As Calvin wrote to Cardinal Sadoleto, “The fact is now too notorious for you to gain anything by denying it, viz., but in all these points, the ancient church is clearly on our side, and opposes you, not less than we ourselves do.” The Reformation was sparked by a "return to the sources" that extended not only to Scripture, but also to the early church fathers.

To leave the Roman church is also not to abandon apostolic succession, a valid ministry, and the Eucharist. Apostolic succession is to be measured by faithfulness to apostolic doctrine, which is found in Scripture. At the same time, we do not forsake the practice of the ordination of pastors by other pastors, although many Protestants do reject the distinction between bishops and priests, seeing that the Bible uses the terms "bishop/overseer," "pastor/shepherd," and "elder/presbyter" interchangeably (e.g. Acts 20:17, 28). As J.A. Alexander, put it “Supposing, then, as we of course do, that the rank, which we have claimed for Presbyters, is justly due to them, it follows necessarily, that no objection to the validity of Presbyterian orders can be founded on the want of apostolical succession; partly because it is not absolutely necessary, partly because we are as really possessed of it as any other ministry or church whatever.” Protestant ministers do administer the Eucharist (whether they use that term or "Communion" or "the Lord's Supper"), following Christ's example by setting apart the elements to their sacramental use by the words of institution and prayers of thanksgiving and blessing.

The Roman church falsely claims to be the whole church while it obscures the gospel by its errors, its distinctive doctrines and practices which have no warrant in God's word, but are invented by man. I have given one example recently here: Justification by Faith Alone: Scripture and Rome. The Protestant doctrine of justification for Christ's sake alone, received by faith alone (although not by a faith that is alone, but is ever accompanied by other graces), is good news, to be joyfully received and spread abroad. Remember the promise sealed by your baptism, the promise of forgiveness and cleansing through the blood of Jesus Christ, a promise to be received by faith - its efficacy and use continues throughout your life. The only perfect righteousness that satisfies the demands of God’s law and gains for us a righteous verdict before him is the satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to us. Faith justifies, not by the good works which it does produce, but by receiving Jesus and his righteousness. "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21).

If you live locally, my church website can be found here: Covenant Family Church (OPC). For those who are further away, you can begin by checking out these: Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Church in America, and United Reformed Churches in North America. 

Justification by Faith Alone: Scripture and Rome

In Paul's letter to the Galatians, we are told that when the apostle Peter came to Syrian Antioch, he ate with the Gentiles, as God had taught him in Acts 10. But when men of the circumcision party in Jerusalem came to Antioch, Peter drew back and separated himself from the Gentiles through fear of them. Other Jewish believers, even Barnabas, followed Peter’s example.

Paul saw correctly that this was hypocrisy, since Peter was not acting on his beliefs but was acting through fear of these visitors. Paul also saw the dangerous impact of this action on the Gentiles converts, since by withdrawing, Peter was compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews, to be circumcised and return to the laws of ritual purity. And so Paul opposed Peter and told him publicly, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

It is a little unclear where the quotation of what Paul said to Peter stops. The ESV ends the quotation at the end of verse 14, and that might be correct. But Paul goes on to explain his basic point in Galatians 2:15-16.

"We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:15–16) 

“We ourselves” is speaking of Jewish believers like Peter and Paul. They were Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners, and yet even they had sought their justification through faith in Jesus Christ, not through works of the law. They put no confidence in the flesh and did not rely on works of the law, but relied on Jesus Christ. Both Jews and Gentiles were condemned by the law and were justified by God through faith in Jesus Christ.

To insist on the observance of the old covenant ceremonies was to count the Gentile believers as unclean, despite their faith in Christ and possession of the Spirit. Those who insisted on circumcision were teaching people to rely on works of the law, to put confidence in the flesh.

Paul goes on to show that these “Judaizers” were misusing the old covenant, which was meant to lead us to Christ, and which had become obsolete with the coming of Christ. But the point of our passage is that no person is justified by works of the law; a person is justified through faith in Jesus Christ. This is why both Jews and Gentiles have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law. It is not that we have believed in Christ in order to receive the ability to keep God's commands and thereby be justified. In that case Paul could have said we are justified by the works of the law through faith in Jesus Christ. But no, Paul contrasts two different ways of seeking justification, by works or by faith.

1. The Doctrine of Justification

A person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.

What is “justification”?

It is a declaration of a person’s righteousness. It is the opposite of condemnation. In the Bible, it is a judicial word, a pronouncement and sentence, not the work of making someone righteous. For example, in Romans 3:4, God is said to be “justified” in his words and to prevail when he is judged. And in Romans 8:33-34, to justify is set against to condemn, "It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?”

What are the “works of the law”? Are they only the observance of the ceremonial law?

They are not only the ceremonial law. Paul's point is that justification is not by our obedience to the law of God, whether ceremonial or moral. Those who rely on old covenant ceremonies in themselves for justification (not putting them aside and looking to the Christ they fore-signified) are relying on their perfect obedience to the whole law for their righteousness (Gal. 3:10-14). Paul goes on in Galatians 3:10-14 to speak of how Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us. Paul also writes about this in his letter to the Romans, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Romans 3:28), and there it is especially clear that the “law” in question is one that is convicts all of us of sin and demands perfect obedience. Romans 3:20, “For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.”

By what kind of faith are we justified?

We are not justified by any faith, but "by faith in Jesus Christ" (Gal. 2:16). The object of faith is important. And it is not a mere knowledge of the gospel or an assent to its truth, but a reliance upon Jesus Christ, a receiving and resting upon him for salvation.

What function does faith serve?

Faith is unique among all the virtues in that it receives Christ. The function of faith is to receive Christ, that we might be united to him. Faith is not the food, but the way we eat the food; not the treasure, but the way we receive the treasure; not the glorious robe, but the way we put it on. 

On what basis are we justified?

Believers are justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness, imputed to us. We are justified “by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Rom. 3:24-25). 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” The satisfaction and obedience of Jesus Christ is imputed to us. That is the only perfect righteousness that will satisfy the demands of God’s law and gain for us a righteous verdict.

This doctrine is not only biblical and Protestant, but also finds a precedent in the early and medieval church, although it was not always well formulated or clearly taught.

On justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness:

John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 2 Corinthians, on 2 Corinthians 5:21, AD c. 400) - “For he said not ‘made’ [Christ] a sinner, but ‘sin;’ … that we’ also ‘might become,’ he did not say ‘righteous,’ but, ‘righteousness,’ and, ‘the righteousness of God.’ For this is [the righteousness] ‘of God’ when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away.”

Bernard of Clarivaux (Letter LX, AD 1140) - “For what could man, the slave of sin, fast bound by the devil, do of himself to recover that righteousness which he had formerly lost? Therefore he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him … Why should not righteousness come to me from another when guilt came upon me from another? … It is not fitting for the son to bear the iniquity of the father, and yet to have no share in the righteousness of his brother. … I attain to one and to the other in the same way: to the one by the flesh, to the other by faith.”

On justification by faith alone:

Clement of Rome (1 Clement 32.4, AD 95) - “And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our own wisdom or understanding or piety, or works that we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the Almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning; to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

Chrysostom (Homily 5 on Colossians, AD c. 400) - “For, all of a sudden, to have brought men more senseless than stones to the dignity of Angels, simply through bare words, and faith alone, without any laboriousness, is indeed glory and riches of mystery…”

The right use of this true doctrine?

As Paul teaches in Galatians 2:19-20, being justified by faith in Christ, we now live in Christ and for Christ, for the one who loved us and gave himself for us. We give ourselves back to him in gratitude. Being set free from the condemnation of the law, we now live our new life to God. Being justified because we are in Christ, we are also sanctified because Christ is in us. “I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.”

2. Roman Errors that Obscure the Doctrine

Peter once obscured the truth by his actions, and Paul rebuked him. So those who claim to succeed Peter obscure the truth, not only by their actions, but by their teachings. The Roman church will say some things we can agree with, but they teach various errors that obscure the truth and lead people astray.

1. Their doctrine of justification.

For example, they accept the satisfaction of Christ for their satisfaction, but not their righteousness before God. They include sanctification as part of justification, teaching that justification is by the forgiveness of sins and by the renewal of the inner man, on which basis a person is declared to be righteous. They reject justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. The Council of Trent proclaimed: 

“If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.” (Session 6, Canon 11)

The Council of Trent still asserted the necessity of grace and faith for justification. They asserted that we were unjust in Adam and only justified by being “born again in Christ” (Session 6, Chapter 3). Yet, they denied that justification is only the remission of sins, but argued that it is “also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace, and of the gifts…” (Chapter 7). The council taught that God does not merely reckon us to be just, but properly calls us just because we are just, each according to our measure. It taught that our justification is not dependent upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, but rather upon our righteousness which we are enabled to exercise because of the grace of Christ given to us. Thus they give faith a different function, to prepare a person for justification and by working love in them, on account of which they are justified.

By making our righteousness before God depended upon our virtue and deeds, it diverts the Christian from looking to Christ toward looking at his own character and works. We agree that Christ does work righteousness and love in us, but we deny that these graces serve as the basis of our justification. The law of God demands perfection, and it is Christ’s own perfect righteousness that covers believers and is reckoned to them by grace. 

2. Their doctrine of concupiscence.

They deny concupiscence to be sin. This view of sin makes it easier for people to believe that they are righteous before God in their own right. But we believe that this original corruption is sin and is still present in the believer, so that if we were judged by the law on the basis of our virtue and works, we would be condemned. Even Paul found sin at work in him; seeing the desire for sin as sin, something to be confessed and mortified (Rom. 7-8). Thus, Christians need the imputed righteousness of Christ to be declared righteous before God. 

3. Their doctrine of penance.

Their doctrine of penance is wrong and misleading. They distinguish between venial and mortal sins in the life of the believer. They teach that mortal sins cause a person to lose his justification and utterly fall from the state of grace. But justification may be renewed. While they affirm that “only God forgives sins” and that “Christ alone expiated our sins once for all,” they also teach that justification may only be renewed by the sacrament of penance. This not only requires contrition and a confession of the sins to a priest, who absolves the sinner, but in their definition of repentance they include the making of satisfaction to God by your deeds to expiate the sin, a satisfaction accepted by God through Christ (CCC, p. 407-408). Again, this redirects people from faith in Christ’s work to their own works.

It is true that we must repent. Repentance is primarily an internal turning from sin to God. With grief and hatred toward sin, we turn from it to God, with full purpose of and endeavor after new obedience. True repentance will include a new resolve to obey God, resulting in deeds in keeping with our repentance (Acts 26:20). But this new obedience is not a satisfaction made to God. We rest on the satisfaction made by Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins and the one who intercedes for us. A true turning from sin to God will include the making of restitution to our fellow man for sins against him and a faith in Christ and his redemptive work for the satisfying of divine justice.

4. Their doctrine of temporal penalties for sin.

Their doctrine of temporal penalties for sin is also wrong and misleading. They will say that even when the guilt and punishment of sin is forgiven, that temporal penalties due for that sin remain. From this doctrine come belief in indulgences, purgatory, and the use of the merits and intercessions of the saints. They teach that if a believer dies before suffering all the temporal punishments for their sins, they must be further purified by suffering in purgatory. They no longer sell indulgences, but still affirm their use to relieve a person of these temporal punishments. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints. … The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.”

Again, this redirects attention away from Christ’s work, neglects the fullness of his work, and substitutes beliefs and practices of man’s invention.

When we are forgiven, both guilt and punishment is removed. We are not liable for a debt that has been canceled (Col. 2:14). We no longer need to make satisfaction for sin. Christ has satisfied divine justice by his single sacrifice, offered once for all, and he is the propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:24-25, Heb. 9:14, 25-28, 10:10-14). It is true that believers are sanctified through trials, sometimes sent as consequences for our sins, but this suffering is not a satisfaction for sin, but a fatherly discipline for our training in this mortal world. Those who die in the Lord are blessed and rest from their labors (Rev. 14:13). As Jesus told the believing criminal on the cross, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). When believers die, their souls are made perfect in holiness and immediately pass into glory, being blessed in Christ for his sake. There they await the resurrection from the dead on the last day.

5. The sacrifice of the Eucharist.

They also teach 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. They teach that the love inspired by this communion wipes away venial sins. They teach it can be offered for the dead, to relieve them of some of their temporal penalties.

The word “Eucharist” is not bad. It comes from the Greek word for “thanksgiving.” A sacrifice of thanksgiving is made in this sacrament, but not a propitiatory sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Christ offered himself once as a sacrifice for sins on the cross (Heb. 9-10), and now the benefits of that sacrifice are given to believers. The Eucharist is a sacrament that represents, seals, and applies the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to us, to be received with faith, thanksgiving, and renewed consecration; not a sacrifice that man offers to God to obtain benefits from him. The letter to the Hebrews could not be more clear on the contrast between the repeated offering of sacrifices in the old covenant and the single sacrifice of Christ once offered to God by Christ, our priest.

What are to we to make of the Roman church and its members?

On the one hand, it is a huge institution with more diversity than they like to admit. 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 sometimes they are 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. Not only will that make your conversations more productive, but it can also open a door to share what you believe and to clear up misconceptions they may have about Protestants.

As for the Roman church in general, a good analogy that was used by the Reformers was that of the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom professed the true God and 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 was 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 (2 Chron. 30:1-12).

We should continue to seek the purity and unity of the visible church, encouraging members of the Roman church 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. Even though it is possible to be saved in it, it is a spiritually dangerous place to be, all the more because of the weight that is given in that church to the authority of the church hierarchy and tradition.

May we call the hierarchy of that church to repent and reform. In the meantime, may we have compassion on our Roman neighbors and share the truth of the gospel that is obscured by the doctrines and practices of their church. Encourage them to come out to the refreshing waters and green pastures of historic Protestantism. 27% of St. Charles County belongs to the Roman church, and 21% of the St. Louis metro area, so this is a very practical issue.

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. They worked to reform it according to Scripture, upon which his church is founded (the word of the prophets and apostles). The work of reform is not yet done - may all the baptized be taught the joyful tidings of the gospel and organized in local and regional churches that faithfully proclaim the word of God and rightly administer the sacraments.

Justification by faith alone for Christ’s sake alone is good news, to be spread abroad and joyfully received. May you receive it yourself and live now by faith in the Son of God, who loved you and gave himself for you. May we not abuse this doctrine and bring it into disgrace, but confess it faithfully along with the whole counsel of God, adorning the faith with good works of grateful love.

We have joyful tidings of salvation in Christ. We who have believed in Jesus Christ, to be justified by faith in him, can take comfort and rejoice that there is “now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). We can rejoice that, “since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of, the glory of God” (Rom. 5:1–2). You can come with confidence to the throne of grace, seeking help in times of need, resting upon the meditation and perfect sacrifice of your merciful high priest.

“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” (Romans 8:33–34)