Dr. E. Calvin Beisner was a keynote speaker at the 2016 Caffeinated Thoughts Briefing, and was kind enough to lecture at Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church in Johnston, IA the following day, October 16th, 2016.
I am inclined to believe that there is a growing interest here in America in what we might call “historic Presbyterianism”. This interest comes from Christians who have experienced everything from curiosity to conviction with regard to such subjects as Psalmody, the Regulative Principle, and experimental religion, just to name a few. The advent of social media has greatly facilitated both the spread of information on these subjects and the connection of Christians who are interested in them.
There are many other subjects, of course, that could be mentioned as matters of interest for those who are enthusiastic of historic Presbyterianism. My assumption is that most who will read this post are already familiar with most of these matters, and have some level of understanding of them.
I recognize that for some, interest in the historic Presbyterian expression of Christianity is not (in itself) particularly life changing. Perhaps you are quite happy in your present situation, ecclesiastical and otherwise. Or, for whatever the reason, you simply aren’t in a position to pursue another church in another place. Maybe you have been blessed to already be a part of a Reformed church whose doctrine and practice embraces the things earlier mentioned.
However, if you are becoming convinced that you need to be a part of a church that believes and practices the historic Presbyterian expression of Christianity, and you are in a position to make the move, you are cordially invited to join us at Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church in Johnston, IA.
Yes, that’s right. You were just invited to move to Iowa.
One could certainly find other denominations that uphold the same doctrine and practice as we do that have congregations throughout the world, including a number in the U.S. and Canada.
So why us? Why Iowa? Please allow me to make the case.
Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church was organized in 1985, and joined the Presbyterian Reformed Church in 1992. The Presbyterian Reformed Church (PRC) was formed in 1965. So we have a congregation that is now over 30 years old, and one that has been part of the PRC for nearly a quarter of a century. The PRC as a denomination celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. This demonstrates a level of stability and an ecclesiastical heritage that I hope you will find desirable.
Our congregation is a small but happy one, and we look forward to worshipping together and fellowshipping with one another every Lord’s Day.
We have a session of four, collectively with many decades of experience in congregational oversight. There is genuine harmony and love among our elders, even when difficult situations arise.
Our pastor, Rev. Mike Ericson (B.A., M.A., M.Div., Th.M.), has been in the ministry for twenty five years and has been our pastor here at Trinity since 2001. His in-depth expository preaching and gentle approach to shepherding God’s people is much appreciated by the congregation. The gospel of Christ crucified for sinners is always set forth.
So what is missing? In short, you are.
I have become convinced that, in God’s providence in this day and time, the people who ordinarily desire to come to a congregation such as ours are people who already have convictions about such things as, for example, Psalmody and the Regulative Principle. They want to enjoy the “stark simplicity” of our worship, with its absence of liturgy and focus upon the Word of God preached, read, and sung. We look forward to the day when Christians in large numbers grow tired of “contemporary worship” and begin to seek out churches with the focus I just mentioned. But until that day comes, we need people who are like minded with us to join us. We need your gifts, we need your labors, we need your fellowship. We need you.
Iowa has a quality of life that is truly excellent. Economically speaking, there is much to appreciate here. In CNBC’s list of “Top States for Business in 2010”, Iowa was recognized as the sixth best state in the nation. Iowa is known for agriculture, but it has a diversified economy with manufacturing, biotechnology, finance and insurance services all contributing significantly to Iowa’s economy. As of December 2015, the state’s unemployment rate is 3.4% (Yes, I know the number is bogus, but it is a useful comparator to other states).
Iowa crime is well below the national median in every category. In the crime rate per square mile category, Iowa is less than half the national median. You and your family can feel safe here.
Iowa has a vibrant Evangelical Christian community. This is evidenced by the Iowa Republican party electing an Evangelical Christian as its presidential caucus winner the last three election cycles. According to the Pew Research Center, of the 77% of Iowa adults that consider themselves to be Christian, 28% are what Pew categorizes as “Evangelical Protestant”. There are also several NAPARC churches in the state, and a number of them are in the Des Moines area where Trinity PRC is located. Trinity has cordial relationships with these churches.
I would charitably challenge anyone who has convictions about the distinctive doctrines of historic Presbyterianism, and isn’t presently in a church that holds to them, to prayerfully consider moving near to a church that does. Further, please prayerfully consider whether or not Trinity PRC may indeed be that church. We need you, and would love to have you be a part of our congregation.
For more information, please call 515-795-3676 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
A few days ago, I posted an article in which I was critical of a statement regarding confessional dissent that John Frame had made on his Facebook page. In this article I brought out the negative implications of what I saw as the plain meaning of Frame’s words.
Today I took my article down from this site. While I am still deeply concerned about the implications that arise from what I still believe to be a more than plausible interpretation of the statement, I see now that Frame’s words can be interpreted in a more positive light.
I left room in my original post for the possibility that Frame’s intentions were not as I had feared. Nonetheless, I still should have cast the piece in a different way, at least demonstrating how else his words might be taken. Unfortunately, I didn’t see any other way at the time I wrote it, perhaps due to my mind being hijacked by its own alarm. Or, maybe I’m just thick headed. Feel free to take your pick.
I am still in hopes that Dr. Frame may at some point remove the ambiguity from his Facebook post. A few minor changes to the statement would provide some much needed clarity, as some who commented on his Facebook page have already requested.
In any case, I apologize for the problems with my earlier post and you may take this as a formal retraction of it.
I’d also like to thank those of you who let me know your concerns about the post. Your comments were helpful and appreciated. Proverbs 27:6
I’ve finally started on what hopefully will be a very nice digital “library” of old and rare sermon recordings. I say finally, because I’ve spent quite a lot of time and a bit of money trying to get an appropriate reel to reel tape deck to play the rare tapes that are presently in my possession. Two tape decks and a lot of frustration later, I have the first sermon posted on the Presbyterian Reformed Church website. It’s by Professor John Murray, and it was preached in 1959 at the Old Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids.
I haven’t looked through all of them yet, but there are sermons from Dr. David Freeman and Dr. William Young in this collection along with Professor Murray and a number of others as well. This is priceless stuff!
The audio quality isn’t as good as I’d hoped, and some of it is not the fault of the old tape or the recording itself. Some of the noise is coming from the ancient tape deck I’m using for playback. I hope to get another one in the near future that is in better working condition and that should really help the quality of the digital recording.
Anyway, here’s a link to the first installment:
At the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Presbyterian Reformed Church last month, Brian Myers spoke on the formation and early years of the Presbyterian Reformed Church, and Rev. Douglas Gebbie spoke on the theological distinctives of the Presbyterian Reformed Church.
This is the second of the two lectures: The Theological Distinctives of the Presbyterian Reformed Church
I met Dr. William Young in November of 1992. Our congregation in Des Moines had petitioned the Presbyterian Reformed Church to be taken into their denomination. He had been part of a committee sent by the Presbytery of the Presbyterian Reformed Church to meet with our congregation and examine the church officers. I walked into the room where we were meeting and he was already there seated at a table. He was unpretentious and, as always, a bit disheveled. He introduced himself simply as “William Young”.
Over the course of the day, we discussed a lot of things: Who we were, who the Presbyterian Reformed Church was, and, of course, during our examination they asked us a lot of questions. As we got to know a bit more about where the other was coming from, we also had the occasional small debate as well. I found myself in a rather protracted debate with Dr. Young about the Received Text and the meaning of providential preservation in the Westminster Confession. I had absolutely no idea who I was dealing with at the time, but in retrospect I was like a kid with a pea-shooter going up against a Howitzer.
He was incredibly kind and patient with me, and didn’t destroy me with his intellect and his vast knowledge, which he certainly could have done.
That evening we stopped at a tobacco shop before heading back to my home, where we stayed up very late sitting by the fireplace smoking cigars and talking. I learned that if you asked the old boy a question you’d better be prepared to listen to the answer for the next forty-five minutes. That first night, I learned about the Clark-Van Til controversy that Dr. Young had found himself in the middle of, I heard about the beginnings of the Rhode Island congregation of the Presbyterian Reformed Church, and Herman Dooyeweerd’s “cigar shop” analogy. He also spoke at some length about his relationship with Dr. Clark, the discussions they had, and how, on one occasion when they were discussing quantum mechanics, Dr. Clark replied to Dr. Young, “I am silenced, but unconvinced.” By this time, I had an inkling of who I was dealing with: This was the most brilliant man I was ever to meet. And one of the most eccentric as well.
That first night I found myself wiping a pile of cigar ash off his necktie before it caught on fire. It wouldn’t be the last time for that sort of thing. He was just oblivious to stuff like that.
The next evening, several of us were gathered together at our home, and Dr. Young was once again seated near the fireplace. I can’t recall exactly how it came about, but he ended up with my son Jonathan on his lap, and Dr. Young was reading Vergilius Ferm’s Pictorial History of Protestantism to him. Jonathan sat on the old man’s lap for most of the evening listening to him tell about Luther and Zwingli at Marburg and such like. It wasn’t until many years later that I realized what a special thing that was, and I hope Jonathan remembers the night he was tutored in Protestant church history by a man who possessed one of the greatest minds in all of Reformed Christianity.
By the time the weekend was over, I knew I had definitely made a fast friend. I admired him immensely and really got a kick out of him. I looked forward to seeing him again. I think he genuinely liked me too. I think he generally liked anybody that he could go have a smoke with, and I guess I fit that bill.
So, for the next twenty years or so we’d see one another on a fairly regular basis. We’d be at a Presbytery meeting together or we’d see one another on one of my many trips to Rhode Island where he was pastor of the Presbyterian Reformed Church congregation there. Between sessions of Presbytery meetings or between services at church, Dr. Young would almost always shuffle over to wherever I was and ask if I was interested in going outside to join him and Vinnie Gebhart and whoever else for a smoke. Some of my fondest memories of Dr. Young involved conversations we had during the enjoyment of a couple of good cigars. We had a lot of laughs, too. He was always happy with a cigar in his hand.
Over the years he and I managed to tick one another off at Presbytery meetings, but the irritation never lasted long between us. We’d be out having a laugh and a smoke afterwards, and that would be the end of that.
He certainly had an opinion on lots of things, but frequently he could be rather puzzling as to just where he really stood. On the one hand, he was always ready to tell you that he didn’t think much of Geerhardus Vos’ biblical theology or Abraham Kuyper’s presumptive regeneration, but, on the other hand, he would make these cryptic statements about other subjects that just left you guessing and scratching your head. I think he liked it that way.
Sometimes he could be incredibly funny. You more or less had to know him a bit to understand that.
One Lord’s Day after a Presbytery meeting in Portland, OR, several of us were on an afternoon walk near the base of Mt. Hood where one of our church families lived. A couple of us were holding on to Dr. Young’s arms as we walked up the hill, and he was asked how he was doing and if the pace was okay. He was, after all, in his early eighties at the time. “Oh,” he said, “this is child’s play.” The way he said it made it sound as if he was incredulous that we would even ask such a thing, and we all broke into laughter as soon as he said it.
But he wasn’t done: “I admit I’m not the man I was when I took my alpenstock and traversed the glacier…” He went on to tell us about how he and his companion misread the signs and took a trail that was extremely dangerous, and that he nearly fell into a crevasse. From there he went on from one story to another going back some sixty years. By the time he had described to us his struggles with Phys-Ed classes at Columbia, I had tears rolling down my face and my sides ached from laughing so hard. We were all listening and laughing, and the old boy knew he was working us like a stand up comedian. He was loving it.
He would occasionally make a face to show how absurd he thought something was, and it involved sticking his tongue out, closing his eyes, and shaking his head rather violently. It was priceless to see that.
Traveling with Dr. Young must have always been a memorable event. On one occasion, Dr. Young was traveling with Vinnie and John Humphrey via airplane to a Presbytery meeting somewhere. One of them must have asked him a question, and the next thing they knew, there was Dr. Young, loudly lecturing on the philosophical history of the nature of perception and Einstein’s theory of relativity. It had to be quite a treat for the rest of the passengers, who Dr. Young was, no doubt, quite unconscious of.
The last several years were difficult for him, as his health was increasingly failing, and he was in and out of various medical facilities, including nursing homes that he absolutely abhorred. Through the efforts of Michael Ives, he eventually was able to receive around the clock in-home care, but in the beginning he was stuck (imprisoned was how he viewed it) in a nursing home. On one of my visits to Rhode Island during this time, he asked to speak to me privately. I went to his room convinced he was going to give me a list of grievances about his situation, but I was completely wrong. He simply wanted to make an inquiry about the spiritual well being of my two sons. I was deeply touched by his concern, especially knowing how stressed and unhappy he was at the time.
I owe the man a great deal. It was through hearing his lectures and reading his articles that I gained an understanding and appreciation of experimental religion. He pointed me to writers like Archibald Alexander and Thomas Boston. And for the first time, I was able to reconcile my Calvinism with the warm Evangelicalism of my youth.
I’m grateful to him for other things as well. Some of our dearest friends came to know Christ under his ministry, and his involvement in the denomination I love has left an imprint that I trust the rest of us will always take notice of.
It’s been awhile now since I last had a smoke and a laugh with my old friend. I miss those times. In my mind’s eye I see him pretty clearly, however: It’s Winter, and he’s wearing his heavy wool overcoat and his coonskin hat, and, just like I did the first time I saw him wearing it,
The following piece was written by Rev. D.Douglas Gebbie
True religious experience ordinarily begins with the gospel. For, as Archibald Alexander writes, ‘If genuine religious experience is nothing but the impression of divine truth on the mind, by the energy of the Holy Spirit, then it is evident that a knowledge of the truth is essential to genuine piety.’
The Westminster Larger Catechism puts it this way:
The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to his image, and subduing them to his will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation.
In the gospel, the Lord freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and testifying that whosoever believes in him shall be saved and none who will come to him will be excluded. Not only so, but He also promises to give to all those who are ordained to life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe:
All those whom God hath predestinated to life, and those only, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; [convincing them of their sin and misery]; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.
This effectual call is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.
The faith wrought by the Spirit and the word of God in the hearts of sinners causes them to be convinced of their sin and of their inability to save themselves. They not only give assent to the truth of the gospel, but also receive and rest upon Christ for their salvation, as He is offered to them in that gospel. As John Murray says:
Faith is essentially an entrustment to Christ as Lord and Saviour. It is self-commitment to him. It is not the belief that we have been saved, not even the belief that Christ died for us, but the commitment of ourselves to Christ as unsaved, lost, helpless, and undone in order that we may be saved. [Emphasis his.]
Moreover, those who have been effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by His word and Spirit dwelling in them. They have all saving graces put in their hearts, including the seeds of repentance unto life. By the word and Spirit working repentance in them, they, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of their sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of God’s mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieve for and hate their sins, that they turn from them all to God, purposing and endeavouring constantly to walk with Him in all the ways of new obedience.
Genuine religious experience, however, does not end with conversion. Faith and repentance continue in the lives of believers; but believers’ experiences of God working these graces in their hearts by His word and Spirit are not constant. While faith grows up in many to a full assurance, it may be weak or strong and may be often, and in many ways, assailed. Assurance of salvation does not so belong to the essence of faith that true believers ‘may wait long, and conflict with many difficulties’ before partaking of an infallible assurance of faith. Again:
True believers may have the assurance of their salvation divers ways shaken, diminished, and intermitted; as, by negligence in preserving of it, by falling into some special sin, which woundeth the conscience and grieveth the Spirit; by some sudden or vehement temptation, by God’s withdrawing the light of his countenance, and suffering even such as fear him to walk in darkness and to have no light: ….
It is also the case that the work of sanctification is imperfect in this life. Because there remain some remnants of corruption in every part of the lives of those effectually called and regenerated, they experience a continual and irreconcilable war between the flesh and the Spirit; and in this war, the remaining corruption may for a time prevail.
Then, there is a religious experience which is not saving. There are others who are ‘outwardly called by the ministry of the word’, and who have some ‘common operations of the Spirit’, ‘yet they never truly come to Christ’. O. Palmer Robertson comments:
Just how far the working of the Spirit goes into the soul of those who reject the gospel must remain a mystery beyond the knowledge of men. But the Scriptures indicate that they may “become partakers of the Holy Spirit” (Heb. 6:4). They may taste the heavenly gift, they may taste the goodness of the word of God, and in some undescribed way they may participate in the reality of the Holy Spirit (Heb. 6:4,5). This description must serve forever as a warning to the presumptuous who would dare to treat lightly the things of God, though it should not be allowed to terrify those who have experienced more than merely a taste of these realities.
Clearly, it is not enough to have a religious experience. That experience must be analysed and proven experimentally to determine whether or not it is a saving work of the Spirit. Those who claim an experience of true religion must make their calling and election sure. This is accomplished by self-examination.
John Murray again:
The duty of self-examination relates itself particularly to baptized and communicant members of the church. In connection with this subject there is admittedly the danger of morbid introspection. There are true Christians who are so much given to what is called the ‘experimental’ in religion that they feed to a very large extent upon their own experience. …. Yet the danger of experientialism does not eliminate the necessity or rightness of self-examination.
Murray goes on to give three reasons for its necessity. The first is that no one should take his or her salvation for granted. If those regenerated in infancy are to entertain the assurance and joy of salvation, it is by examining and proving the grounds of their faith and hope. Similarly, for those who have been regenerated in the years of understanding, the assurance of their salvation does not rest upon past experience; therefore, they also must honestly examine the grounds of their faith and hope. The second is that while kirk sessions do not examine men and women to find out what the condition of their hearts is, ministers and elders must inculcate the necessity of their examining themselves, to the end that they may prove themselves and know themselves as the blood-bought possession of Christ (2 Cor. 13:5). The third:
It is not sufficient that members of the church should be true believers and be the heirs of eternal life. It is also necessary that they be self-consciously and intelligently so. (1 John 5:13; 2 Peter 1:10).
By the Spirit’s enabling, true believers may detect in themselves the inward evidences of those graces to which the promises of life are made and, from the certainty of their effectual calling, be assured of their election:
Such as truly believe in Christ, and endeavour to walk in all good conscience before him, may, without extraordinary revelation, by the Spirit enabling them to discern in themselves those graces to which the promises of life are made, and bearing witness with their spirits that they are the children of God, be infallibly assured that they are in the estate of grace, and shall persevere therein unto salvation.
Self-examination is especially associated with receiving the Lord’s supper. That is the context in which the Larger Catechism lists areas to be examined:
They that receive the sacrament of the Lord’s supper are, before they come, to prepare themselves thereunto, by examining themselves of their being in Christ, of their sins and wants; of the truth and measure of their knowledge, faith, repentance; love to God and the brethren, charity to all men, forgiving those that have done them wrong; of their desires after Christ, and of their new obedience; and by renewing the exercise of these graces, by serious meditation, and fervent prayer.
One who doubteth of his being in Christ, or of his due preparation to the sacrament of the Lord’s supper, may have true interest in Christ, though he be not yet assured thereof; and in God’s account hath it, if he be duly affected with the apprehension of the want of it, and unfeignedly desires to be found in Christ, and to depart from iniquity: in which case (because promises are made, and this sacrament is appointed, for the relief even of weak and doubting Christians) he is to bewail his unbelief, and labour to have his doubts resolved; and, so doing, he may and ought to come to the Lord’s supper, that he may be further strengthened.
It is not great faith which saves, but faith, no matter how weak, which accepts, receives, and rests upon Christ. It is not the duration or intensity of conviction of sin which makes it a saving work of the Spirit, but the fact that it has driven to Christ. It is the work of God’s word and Spirit in the hearts of His elect which converts, preserves, and saves; but self-examination is essential to the non-presumptuous assurance of that salvation.
 A native of Scotland, the writer was educated at Glasgow College of Technology and the Free Church of Scotland College, Edinburgh. Before his induction to the Presbyterian Reformed Church in Chesley, Ontario, he served Free Church of Scotland charges in Raasay and Achiltibuie and pastored the PRC’s congregation in Portland, Oregon. He is married with two children.
 Archibald Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989) p.xviii.
 Larger Catechism 155. [The Confession of Faith (1646), The Larger Catechism(1648), and The Shorter Catechism (1648) are bound together in Westminster Confession of Faith (Glasgow; Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994). References to The Confession of Faith (WCF) are made by citing the chapter and section. References to The Larger Catechism (LC) and The Shorter Catechism (SC) are made by citing the question number.]
 WCF 7:3; LC 63.
 WCF 7:3.
 Shorter Catechism (SC) 31. Archibald Alexander (Op cit, pp. 15-20) has an interesting discussion of the relation between conviction of sin and regeneration.
 WCF 10:1&2.
 LC 72; see also WCF 14:2.
 John Murray, Collected Writings Murray of John (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976) Vol. 1, p. 147.
 WCF 13:1.
 LC 75.
 LC 76.
 WCF 14:3.
 WCF 18:3.
 WCF 18:4.
 WCF 13:2&3.
 WCF 10:4; see also LC 61 and WCF 18:1.
 ‘The Holy Spirit in the Westminster Confession of Faith’ in Ligon Duncan (ed.) The Westminster Confession of Faith into the 21st Century (Fearn: Mentor, 2003) Vol 1, p. 82.
 WCF 18:3.
 Op cit, pp. 147-148.
 Op cit, pp. 148-149. For regeneration in infants see John Murrray, Op cit, Vol. 2, pp. 199-201, Achibald Alexander, Op cit, pp. 10-14, and William Guthrie, The Christian’s Great Interest (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994) pp. 38-39.
 WCF 18:2; 3:8.
 LC 80.
 LC 172. William Guthrie deals with many of the issues raised in this outline of the experimental religion taught in Westminster Standards in The Christian’s Great Interest. He identifies the various ways by which men are drawn to Christ. He notes the differences between that preparatory work of the law which leads to salvation and the temporary convictions of those who relapse. He delineates the evidences of saving faith; he writes to strengthen the ‘one who doubteth’; and for those who find no evidence of a saving work at all, he speaks of how they might come to Christ.
The following piece was written by Rev. D.Douglas Gebbie
She did not dream that she was at Manderley again, nor did she invite me to call her Ishmael; yet, by the time that I had read the first paragraph of Mrs. Butterfield’s book, I was hooked.
I knew that this was an important book, addressing current issues in human narrative rather than cold apologetic; and I knew that I should read it. However, the thought of one hundred and forty pages of honest autobiography can lie heavy on the stomach, especially when I was not sure if I were part of the intended audience. Then, there was the title with its allusions to Hogg and De Quincey. What would this justified sinner’s memoires be? Might her description of her former ways prove more alluring than that of the truth as it is in Jesus? I need not have feared. There is no caricatured Calvinism, no sensationalising of sin. That first paragraph’s tokens of warmth and wit were not false. And, while I’d say that this is a women’s book, it is not exclusively so. Mrs. Butterfield’s one liners (‘Asking a former heathen like me if I missed the hymns in formal worship is like asking a cannibal if he misses tofu.’) give a man a chance to breathe.
At the outset of her story, Rosaria Champaigne Butterfield is a tenured professor of English, a radical feminist, and a Marxist, who is living in a Lesbian relationship. By the end, she is a Christian, the wife of a RPCNA minister, and the mother of four adopted and homeschooled young people. What brought about this change? Two miracles. The first miracle is effectual calling. The second is that in most cases, most of the time, the Christian people involved behaved like Christians.
Before going any further, while this is a narrative of miraculous events, it is not a sensational story. Do not get me wrong. This is a very important book, extremely well written, by an enchanting author. It is not a tale with salacious details of sin, extraordinary revelation from God, and beatific Christian living. It is the story of a woman deep in the world and given to the flesh who meets Christian people, is accepted as a person, reads the Bible, hears the gospel, and becomes a believer who can identify with Paul’s wretchedness and his hope. Even if the convert is unlikely, the conversion not unusual. The miracle, of course, is that by convincing her of her sin and misery, enlightening her mind in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing her will, the Holy Spirit persuaded and enabled her to embrace Christ as He was freely offered to her in the gospel. Yet, that is the same miracle, the same work of the Holy Spirit, which converts heterosexual, complementarian, constitutional monarchists. And that is why this book is so important. Feminism, Marxism, and Lesbianism are not unforgivable sins. Feminists, Marxists, and Lesbians are not forever bound in fetters of genetic determinism. Nor are they reclaimed through therapy. They are converted by the preaching of the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit just the same as you and I, and Muslims, are.
Mrs. Butterfield comes with fresh eyes into the culture in which I have lived for a long time, and I appreciate many of her insights. I appreciate them not in the sense that I nod in polite dismissiveness. I appreciate them as only one whose opinions are confirmed by an objective observer with a Ph.D. can.
Douglas Gebbie was educated at Glasgow College of Technology and the Free Church of Scotland College, Edinburgh. He has served conservative Presbyterian congregations in Scotland, the United States of America, and Canada. He currently is Pastor of the Presbyterian Reformed Church of Chesley, Ontario.
By Brian Myers & Michael Ives
Trinity Presbyterian Reformed Church
Des Moines, Iowa
Q85: What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin?
A: To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.
Q86: What is faith in Jesus Christ?
A: Faith in Jesus Christ is a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon him alone for salvation, as he is offered in the gospel.
Q87: What is repentance unto life?
A: Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
Q88: What are the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption?
A: The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption, are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.
By the time we reach these questions in the Assembly’s famous Shorter Catechism, we have learned of the rigorous demands of the law (questions 39-81), of the covenant of works in which Adam failed, and of the failure of the human race represented in him (questions 12-19). We have learned of the dreadful consequences of this (questions 19, 82-84). Sinners outside of Christ will be cast into the fires of hell for all eternity. All sinners outside of Christ have made themselves liable to God’s wrath. Wrath is not reserved only for the infamous characters of history, such as Nero, Hitler, and Stalin. Not just those who do unspeakable evil are destined for judgment. All sinners outside of Christ.
People tend to think of great judgment only for those who do great wickedness in this life. Such is not the teaching of scripture. In Matthew 11:21-24, we see that those that had observed the mighty works of God and yet rejected him will undergo greater judgment than those cities in which great wickedness was commonplace. What does that say to us about those who are raised in the covenant, raised in the church, those who are the beneficiaries of all the means of grace? If we have had the great privilege of being in the visible church and we fail to place our faith and trust in Christ, our judgment will be great indeed. The apostle’s solemn utterance resounds in our ears, “How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?” (Heb. 2:3).
In this brief examination of the catechism’s questions 85-88, we address the “how” that arises from these sobering contemplations. We will thus treat God’s requirement of faith and repentance for salvation, as well as the definition of faith and repentance set forth in the catechism. Then having discussed the necessity and the requirements, we shall shortly address the means of grace that God has appointed for us. Not every point made in the catechism will be discussed in detail, but we trust that the important matters that are treated herein will be of benefit to all.
Question 85 essentially deals with this most important question of life: How can we be saved? “What doth God require of us, that we may escape his wrath and curse due to us for sin?” Question 84 says that every sin deserves the wrath and curse of God, and so it follows that this question would be asked. The sinner’s reaction to hearing the answer to question 84 may understandably be to ask this very question. The sinner asking such a question may well be afraid. He may be the subject of the common operations of the Holy Spirit, causing him to experience great legal terrors. Consider the proof texts given for question 84. “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them” (Gal. 3:10). “Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mat. 25:41). These texts are indeed fearful to those as yet unconverted.
The fearing soul should not regard his experience as a bad thing.
We recall the notable maxim of Proverbs 9:10, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom.” Surely the fear of God’s wrath may be included in what this verse has in view. In any case, the legal conviction of sin and fear of sin’s consequences are ordinary experiences prior to regeneration. Archibald Alexander, in his Thoughts on Religious Experience, notes the purpose of such conviction: “The only end which it can answer is to show the rational creature his true condition, and to convince the sinner of his absolute need of a Saviour.”1 And so we read in Galatians 3:24, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” Thus, while legal conviction will save no one, it may be used by the Spirit to drive people to the foot of the cross where salvation can indeed be found.
It has been a matter of debate whether or not a law work prior to regeneration is a necessary thing. Thomas Boston, for example, appears to affirm the necessity of legal conviction prior to regeneration2 while Archibald Alexander did not.3 The Presbyterian church was divided on this question in the “Old Side- New Side” controversy in the early part of the eighteenth century. But regardless of this debate, all would admit that conviction of sin is indeed a necessity. This is why the use of the law is so important. People need to know that they are in need of salvation. And they need to know what they are being saved from.
Nowadays, many evangelicals regard Christ as an antidote for the effects of sin rather that for sin itself. In other words, the question no longer is “I am a sinner, and the wrath of God is upon me, so what must I do to be saved?” Rather, it is “I am a drunk, therefore I need Christ.” Or, “I am drug addict, so I need to try Jesus.” No, Christ is not presented to us in the gospel so we can clean our lives up. That will be a happy consequence of true conversion, of course, but that is not the focus of the gospel. The focus of the gospel is Christ crucified for the spiritual salvation of sinners.
And let us be certain of one thing: this question concerns us as individuals. We are to wrestle with this matter personally. The matter of repentance and faith is not one in which we are dealt with as a group. There are some contemporary reformed circles that tout a corporate notion of salvation. Among them, the idea of personal salvation is lampooned as “baptistic” or “revivalistic.” But consider what Christ said to Nicodemus in John 3:3, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” A man, says Jesus. A man must be born again. He did not address a group of men, nor the sect to which Nicodemus belonged. Neither did he even refer to the nation of Israel. Rather, a man must be born again.
He goes on to say “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again” (Jn. 3:5-7). It is true enough that all men are in need of this new birth. That may be understood to be universal, but the remedy for the need is neither corporate nor only federal in the abstract. Christ taught the new birth in terms of a man’s personal need, and that included Nicodemus. This need for personal regeneration is not obviated by membership in the covenant community. Nicodemus was in the covenant community. You couldn’t be any more in the covenant community than Nicodemus, and yet he still had a need. Christ told him so. Men, women, and children all have a personal need for regeneration. Even those in the covenant community have this need. In the Sermon on the Mount, the Lord made it plain that the law dealt with matters of the heart and not merely the external. The people were astonished at his doctrine. Similarly, the disciples asked, “Who then can be saved?” when the Lord encountered the rich young ruler (Mat. 19:25). It was becoming clear to them that being a son of Abraham in external conformity to the law simply wasn’t enough.
We’ve been discussing this matter of personal salvation within the context of the new birth. Now, a good Calvinist knows that the new birth is not something that he can achieve himself. He knows that faith and repentance are results of the new birth; they are the saving graces wrought by the Holy Spirit. But the personal need for them remains the same. You won’t be regenerated simply because you are in the visible church, and you most certainly won’t be converted and exercise faith and repentance if you are not regenerated. May we be done with the notion that membership in the visible church necessitates salvation. It does not. To believe so is a spiritually fatal error.
Now that we perceive the urgent necessity of salvation, to what antidote must we betake ourselves? The divines respond first of all by urging faith in Jesus Christ.
When turning to consider its character, we see first of all that it is a saving grace. It is a thing that does not originate from us. Were this the case, it wouldn’t be referred to as a grace. Faith is a gift of God. Ephesians 2:8 read, “For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God.” What a marvelous thing that God would grant unto sinners the gift of faith! We see secondly that in faith we receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation. The Confession puts it this way, “The principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.”4 When one first becomes a Calvinist, the temptation may exist to no longer use words like “accept and receive” when speaking of salvation. Though much of the Confession’s definition seems to resonate with modern evangelical language, it is nonetheless true. Under question 86, the Divines give us two proof texts that clearly illustrate this. Hebrews 10:39 reads, “But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” John 1:12 is also cited, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” We need to believe and receive. Words such as “believe,” “receive,” and “accept” are not words that should be eliminated from our vocabulary simply because they may have been co-opted by evangelical Arminians. These are words that are scriptural, confessional, and, when properly understood, convey the essence of saving faith. We believe in and receive Christ, thus we rest upon Christ and trust in him for salvation.
Thomas Vincent gives us some insight into when we may say with confidence that our souls rest upon Christ for salvation. “The soul doth rest upon Christ for salvation when, being convinced of its lost condition by reason of sin, and its own inability, together with all creatures’ insufficiency, to recover it out of this estate, and having a discovery and persuasion of Christ’s ability and willingness to save, it doth let go all hold on the creatures, and renounce its own righteousness, and so lay hold on Christ, rely upon him, and put confidence in him, and in him alone, for salvation.”5
Next we see in the answer to question 86 that it is Christ alone who saves us. Christ alone! It is not Christ plus works. Nor is it Christ plus my standing in the church, Christ plus my baptism, or Christ plus my good, sound, Calvinistic theology. It is not Christ plus anything. Someone has said that justification is analogous to a room. And that room had to be filled with Christ – nothing more, nothing less. There is no space in that room for anything else but Christ. And if we were to start dragging our works into the room, there would be no space for Christ. Christ must have every square foot, or he will have none. If we want Christ to reside there at all, the room must be swept clean of our works. Salvation is in Christ alone.
We human creatures are so prone to deception on this point. We are constantly attempting to save ourselves or contribute to our salvation somehow. This is where many a soul has been lost, even when professing Christ as Savior. When the eye of faith is cast somewhere other than Christ, the result is fatal to the soul. It is an easy trap for the Arminian who finds himself trusting in a decision to follow Christ rather than trusting in Christ himself. It is just as easy for the Calvinist who sees his salvation in an intellectual assent to certain theological propositions rather than Christ crucified for sinners. Again, salvation is in Christ alone. Flavel says “The primary object of faith is the person of Christ, and the secondary are his benefits.” He goes on to say that one “must eye Christ only, and exclude all others, or he cannot be justified; Phillipians 3:9. And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ: The righteousness which is of God by faith, Romans 4:5. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”6
We see also in this catechism answer that Christ is offered to us in the gospel. He is offered. He is presented as the magnificent remedy for our sinful condition. He died for sinners. God, manifested in the flesh, died for sinners. Being good Calvinists, do we think he made an atonement for every man, woman, and child who ever lived or will live? No. The Bible doesn’t teach that.
But do we believe him to be really, truly, and genuinely offered to everyone? Yes we do. When someone fails to respond to the gospel is it because the gospel has failed? Has Christ failed? Were the promises of the gospel not true? Of course not! The gospel is true, powerful, and genuine every time it is presented. On this point, John J. Murray remarks “Holding to the most exalted Reformed orthodoxy we can invite sinners to the Lord Jesus not on the basis of ‘Christ died for you in particular,’ but on the ground of the Christ who died for sinners being offered to every one to whom the gospel comes. That offer and that invitation is as particular as if the sinner’s name was written on it.”7 And Rutherford says, “In the Gospel offer the reprobate are called as if they were chosen…they have as fair a revealed warrant to believe as the elect have, for they are sinners to whom Christ is offered.”8
So what is the problem then? Well, the problem remains where it always has with human creatures, namely, with our hearts. The Holy Spirit must regenerate us if we are to respond to the gospel in faith and repentance. We saw this earlier in our discussion. Our hearts are dead. They must be quickened. They must be granted the gift of faith. Nonetheless, our Lord is indeed presented in the gospel as crucified for sinners. We can say that the gospel is true for everyone with whom we speak because we know that they are sinners in need of Christ. These are precisely the subjects unto whom Christ is freely offered: sinners in need of Christ. Everyone has warrant to believe the gospel. They are commanded to repent and believe, but they are also warmly invited by a Savior who has demonstrated His love for sinful men and who has promised to save them to the uttermost if they will but repent and believe. Hence the compelling words of our Lord, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28-30).
The next component given in response to the “how?” is repentance unto life. It is the second side of the same coin.
In question 87, we learn that repentance, like faith, is a saving grace as well. It does not come from within ourselves, but from God. Peter thus exclaims in Acts 5:31, “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.”
By the Holy Spirit, the sinner is truly convicted of his sin in a moral sense rather than simply legal. He really sees it. He really understands that he has offended God. He grieves over it. He hates it. He turns from it. Francis R. Beattie explains, “It is not the mere natural sorrow or regret for sin which is unto death, but a godly sorrow which is unto life. The root idea of the word (repentance) is a change of mind or view, in regard, specially, to the matter of sin. It implies a radical change of heart and mind, of life and conduct, in regard to sin and its deserts.”9
Those who have repented in this way see the mercy of God in Christ. There does the sinner finds refuge! It is not simply in the seeing sin as heinous that the sinner finds relief, for apart from the merciful Savior no relief will be found. The Divines have quoted Joel 2:13 here, “Rend your heart, and not your garments, and turn unto the Lord your God: for he is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil.” This is a great proof text. It shows the delightful and wonderful mercy of God toward His people. The sinner, now having his heart quickened by the Holy Spirit, is not only struck with how vile his sins are in the sight of God, but he is moved out of love for his merciful Savior to sin no more.
Repentance “unto life” involves a newness of life for the believer. A genuine repentance will have a necessary effect upon how the believer leads his life. There is a resolve to be more conformed to the image of the Savior. There is a true desire to do that which Christ commands. This must be present in the renewed heart, however weak the outworking may actually be. And the presence of this resolve and desire provides good evidence that the repentance is indeed real. He is still plagued by what we might call the ‘remaining corruption,’ but he abhors it. He loves his merciful Savior because the Savior first loved him. And the Holy Spirit will enable him to mortify the flesh. Yes, he will continue to struggle, and he will sometimes fall; but he will continue to fight against the world, the flesh, and the devil. He will never give up if he is Christ’s. And one day he will be delivered from the battle, evermore to be in the presence of the Lord, the One who not only delivered him but who enabled him and was with him every step of the way. What a wonderful thing!
Next, his repentance, both initial and ongoing, will address all sin. His repentance will not rest in generalities, but will deal with particulars.10 This involves confession not only to God, but sometimes also to our fellow man as well. We ought not expect relief from our conscience when we confess our sins to God but make no attempt to confess those same sins to our neighbor when we by them have offended him.11
Repentance must not be understood as providing any kind of satisfaction for sin. Pardon for sin is only found in Christ. Yet it must be said that no one will ever be saved without repentance. It is commanded that those who wish to be saved must repent (Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19, Luke 13:5).
We see also that God requires the diligent use of the means of grace. The Scripture abundantly attests to this. “Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans10:17). We cannot expect that God will save and bless us if we ignore the very means that He has set forth to accomplish these ends. It is true enough that we cannot save or sanctify ourselves. But it is no less true God uses outward and ordinary means to save us, ignored only at the peril of our very souls. The Lord has set forth the Word, the sacraments, and prayer to communicate to us the benefits of redemption. Boston says, “We have no ground to expect grace or salvation but in the use of the means, Proverbs 8:34 “Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors.” He goes on to say, “The neglect of the means is a contempt of the thing. If we would be healed, we would lie at the pool. If not, we say we care not for cure.” He then concludes that, although we dare not say “God has promised to save and convert those who do what is in their power in the use of means,” it is nonetheless “possible,” even “probable” that God would.12
These means are found in the corporate worship of His church. This is not to say that private prayer and reading of the Word are not means or that they are not profitable for salvation. They most certainly are! Private exercises are not to be neglected. But the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments belong exclusively to the church, and are practiced in public worship along with the singing of praise, the reading of the Word, and public prayer. The means of grace in their grandest display are in the corporate worship of His church. And the Westminster Confession of Faith reminds us that the visible church “is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no possibility of salvation.”13 If we are to be diligent in our use of outward means, we must not neglect the attendance of public worship.
We have very briefly examined these four catechism questions. What are we to say about these questions? Are there four more important questions in the catechism? Is there a subject that we should discuss that is more important than salvation?
We spoke earlier of faith being a gift. Some might be tempted to simply say that they do not possess the gift. Is this an excuse? Is this an excuse that God will recognize? The answer, of course, is a resounding “no.” If you say you do not have faith, you should go ask for it. If you say you have not experienced the new birth, ask the Lord in His mercy to regenerate you. There is nothing wrong with that. In Jeremiah 31:18-19 we read, “turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God. Surely after that I was turned, I repented.” Seek the Lord’s work in quickening your dead heart. Pray that he would remove your heart of stone. Ezekiel 36: 26-27 affords us ample encouragement, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”
Ask! Be diligent in your use of the means of grace. The Lord is the Rewarder of those that diligently seek Him (Heb. 11:6). Remember that you are warmly invited to come to Christ and have your burden of sin removed (Matt. 11:28). He invites you to His wedding feast. “Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage” (Matt. 22:9). Will you come? Will you be clothed in His wedding garment?
1 Archibald Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1844; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967), p. 18.
2 Thomas Boston, The Beauties of Boston (n.p., 1831; reprint, Inverness: Christian Focus Publications, 1979), pp. 589-91.
3 Alexander, Thoughts on Religious Experience, pp. 15-17.
4 Westminster Confession of Faith (London, 1646: reprint, Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994), Chap. 14, Sect. 2.
5 Thomas Vincent, The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly Explained and Proved from Scripture (London: Printed for Henry Mortlock, 1675; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1980), p. 227.
6 The Works of John Flavel, vol. 6, An Exposition of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (n.p.: W. Baynes & Son, 1820; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1968), p. 268.
7 John J. Murray, “The Marrow Controversy – Thomas Boston and the Free Offer,” in Preaching And Revival. The Westminster Conference Papers (Colchester, Essex: Christian Design & Print, 1984), p. 52.
8 Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened: Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh: Printed by Andro Anderson for Robert Broun, 1655), p. 339.
9 Francis R. Beattie, The Presbyterian Standards (Richmond, Va.: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1896; reprint, Greenville, S.C.: Southern Presbyterian Press, 1997), p. 229.
10 Westminster Confession, Chap. 15, Sect. 5.
11 Ibid., Chap. 15, Sect. 6.
12 Thomas Boston, Commentary on the Shorter Catechism, vol. 2 (Previously published in The Complete Works of the Late Rev. Thomas Boston, Ettrick, London: William Tegg & Co., 1853; reprinted separately, Still Waters Revival Books, Edmonton, 1993), pp. 398-99.
13 Westminster Confession, Chap. 25, Sect. 2.
I am an elder in the Presbyterian Reformed Church, a small denomination with congregations in the United States, Canada, and England.
I hope you enjoy reading the articles that I post, and please leave a comment to let me know what you think.