—Introduction – Part 1 – Conclusion
Part II: Four Neo-Reformed Sectarian Parties
As we move on to focus on the specific neo-reformed sect with its parties or camps, some readers might be considering a common sectarian defence of the infiltration of Protestant evangelical churches. Yes, there have been neo-reformed ministers and church history revisionists who have attempted to argue that various theological parties were present at the Westminster Assembly (1643-48) and worked on the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism from within the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, besides the puritan Presbyterians in England and in Scotland. The attempted argument would then be that this writer is simply of the puritan Presbyterian party and is pushing his own agenda with the Westminster Church Standards. Let us deal with this argument and dispense with it now in defence of honesty in writing and subscribing to church creeds, confessions, and catechisms. First, readers should take serious note of the introductory words in the 39 Articles of the Christian Religion (1571, 1662), which predates the Westminster Church Standards in the Church of England; and taken from the ‘Introduction’, the appropriate words read “prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles” among the gospel ministry in the church (see https://www.churchofengland.org/prayer-and-worship/worship-texts-and-resources/book-common-prayer/articles-religion). Second, the obvious error of this attempted revisionist interpretation is that it displays little or no interest in the natural meaning of each chapter, section, questions and answers of the Westminster Church Standards; and it is dangerous to accept this revisionist argument, with reference to writers in their ability to know English and be serious in communication, to say what they mean and mean what they say. Likewise the reader must employ this crucial principle in interpretation of what is read and studied; or the same faulty manner of interpretation can be used for any writing, including the Scriptures themselves. Third, it further definitely ignores the adoption acts of the Church of Scotland (1645-48) and the Church of England (1648-1660), which cannot be missed that total Subscription to the legislative intent was required in the adoption acts. This same principle in writing, interpreting, and subscribing church creeds was already followed in the formula of subscription stated in the Synod of Dordt Church Order 1618-19 and appended at the end (https://www.ccel.org/creeds/neth-ref-order.txt). Finally, only the writers and/or original signers of the Westminster Church Standards can be representatives of the doctrine of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms in their distinct writings (e.g., William Guthrie, Thomas Maton, Matthew Poole, Thomas Vincent, and Thomas Watson). Those who failed to sign the Westminster Church Standards at the completion and adoption could not be representatives of the doctrines to be confessed and preached by gospel ministers in the Church of Scotland or the (Presbyterian) Church of England.
Whilst Presbyterian reformed evangelical church officers should appreciate genuine reformed evangelical Congregational-Independents (Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order, 1658) including reformed evangelical Baptists (1689) and from time to time worship in these congregations, it is the Presbyterian reformed evangelical churches that must lead the way in reformation and to have lasting reformation with proper church courts in subordination up to the general synod (see Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government, Of Synodical Assemblies; the Synod of Dordt Church Order 1618-19, Art.36); but there should not be any organic union nor acceptance of transfer ministers who are reformed evangelical Congregational-Independents, so to subject Presbyterian congregations to vulnerability: which Congregational-Independents have chosen for themselves with no power to rule and decree in the general synod in cases of conscience (see WCF 32:3). In North America, new side and then new school Presbyterians allowed for Congregational-Independents to be licensed and ordained in the Presbyterian Church in the United States (18th-19th centuries). When compromises were made, the notion has been that it would not affect their own congregations and would display some kind of unity in the visible church. The result was reconstituting into a semi-Presbyterian Church destined for the ‘gates’ to be opened and neo-reformed church officers to ‘drive a truck’ through the general synods, the presbyteries, and then in the pulpits of the congregations to take control of the denomination. Also the Larger Catechism, including Question Answer 158, should have never been compromised, allowing ruling elders to “preach”. In time, the neo-reformed church officers reinterpreted the Shorter Catechism on effectual calling, justifying faith, repentance unto life, and peace of conscience, ushering in the simple faith false gospel and/or justification by faith plus works into Presbyterian and professing reformed churches. Furthermore, a denomination will eventually be semi-Presbyterian with at least majority neo-reformed church officers, with no decreed fencing of the Lord’s Supper by the Shorter Catechism as the minimum body of divinity, and without Larger Catechism catechetical preaching. In time, synodical ‘decisions’ eventually replace synodical decrees (see Acts 16:4, NIV and ESV comp. to KJB and Geneva Bible).
Neo-Reformed Schismatic Infiltration of Protestant Evangelical Churches
Having allowed the neo-reformed ministers and ruling elders into former Protestant evangelical denominations, who are not reformed but pseudo-reformed, factions and divisions were brought into “conservative” Presbyterian denominations. The neo-reformed church officers claim to confess a reformed creed, but in practice have no known and definite written creed, confession, or catechism. The ‘Scripture alone, grace alone, and faith alone’ summary of the reformation, with poor explanation, is actually a neo-reformed revisionist notion of the 16th century reformation; and it is often a false simple ‘faith’. When it comes to Salvation, faith alone should mean saving faith alone and not justifying faith alone (see WCF 14:1-2); or it is an oversimplified and unscriptural summary, neither reformed nor evangelical. No one can be saved nor have peace with God without biblical saving faith (Psa. 119:165; Matt. 7:21-23; John 14:15; Rom. 5:1; Heb. 12:14): that is, definite commitment to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and obedience, biblical justification by grace through faith alone, and biblical repentance unto life (see WCF 14:1-2; 15:1-2; LCQA 3). Consider the anti-evangelical explanation of faith alone written by the Associated Presbyterian Churches (www.apchurches.org under “What we believe”).
Many neo-reformed “Presbyterian” sectarian leaders have chosen to be presumptiously deceptive by claiming to confess substantially the system of doctrine of the Westminster Standards or the Three Forms of Unity or even the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession; but the neo-reformed church officers instead substantially disagree with the Westminster Church Standards and the Three Forms of Unity. The church officers have deliberate nuances, reinterpretations, scruples, applications, and ways of avoiding the revealing of personal rejection of reformed evangelical doctrines embodied in the Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt. The neo-reformed controlled denominational unity is held together by authoritarian church courts suppressing the reformed evangelical faith, promoting their unbiblical view of schism; and since the latter-20th century many of the neo-reformed Presbyterian denominations have a joint covering international ecumenical association for the appearance of unity (see e.g., http://www.naparc.org; https://www.icrconline.com).
The Four Neo-Reformed Sectarian Parties
Within the neo-reformed sect camp, it can be best understood that there are four somewhat distinct sectarian parties. The four neo-reformed distinct sectarian parties are (1) the Arminian-Pelagian sect, (3) the Moderate Calvinist sect, (3) the Bunyanite sect, and 4) the Hoeksemite sect. Now before we launch into an explanation of the tenets of these four neo-reformed sectarian parties, let us again clarify what we are precisely saying about the neo-reformed church officers and precisely saying about the member advocates of neo-reformed congregations. If the church member advocates were in the 17th century Church of Scotland, many of the sectarian attendees would be considered baptised basic adherents, but not suitable for the Lord’s Supper, not displaying fruits of repentance unto life; and they would have to display fruit in doctrine and life with at least nine months to a year under the preaching of the Word, and expressed rejection of neo-reformed gospel errors in order to become communicant members (see I Cor. 11:18-19). We view the neo-reformed church officers who profess to be “reformed” to be held accountable to their vows in doctrine and life to the gospel of free grace in the Westminster Church Standards and/or the Three Forms of Unity; therefore, we view them as substantially disagreeing with the reformed church standards and advancing neo-reformed false gospel doctrines instead of the true reformed evangelical faith. Those neo-reformed sectarians, bearing false witness in their church vows, ignore I Corinthians 1:10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Philippians 1:27. Neo-reformed church officers are heretics, schismatics, besides daily severely breaking the 9th commandment (see Matt. 5:33-37; Tit. 3:10-11 KJB).
The Arminian-Pelagian Neo-Reformed Sectarian Party
The (1) Arminian-Pelagian neo-reformed sectarian party (wrongly called broadly evangelical) was originally most prominent in the early counter reformation in the 16th-17th centuries German Lutheran church, the Remonstants of Holland and then in the 18th and 19th centuries. Various Arminian-Pelagian groups all took up the mantel for counter reformation and did believe themselves to be “reformed” in the 16th century: hence labelled neo-reformed. The following are a list of the some of the 20th century schismatic sectarian Remonstrant-Arminian-Pelagians: the Wesleyans in Anglicanism, Brethrenism, the Baptist Union, the American Baptists, the Conservative Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Free Will Methodists, the New Testament Baptists, the North American Baptists, Southern Baptist Convention, the Nazerines, and Wesleyan Holiness. The Remonstant-Arminians of Holland had quite a clear set of doctrines that came to be known as the Five Points of Arminianism (see Jacob Arminius, 1560-1609) and was condemned to be heretical by the Synod of Dordt Canons of Dordt rejection of errors (1618-19), being identified with the Pelagian heresy in the early church in Britain (see Pelagius, British Monk 360-418); and it is illogical to claim that if the fifth point of the Remonstrance is changed to a basic eternal security, instead of the biblical perseverance in the faith in the Canons of Dordt, it can be construed as moderate “Calvinism”. Whether concurring with five points or four points of the Remonstrance, the heart of Arminianism remains the same and still essentially the same as that old heresy called Pelagianism.
For those who might object that Remonstrant-Arminian-Pelagianism should be put together and then branding Remonstrant-Arminianism a heresy, let us understand something. Jacobus Arminius (1560 –1609) was a professor in theology at the Leiden University, Holland. Among other scriptural doctrines he opposed, J. Arminius opposed the Doctrine of Predestination, Election, and Effectual Calling of the reformed evangelical faith. His followers wrote the 1610 Five Articles of the Remonstrants (see http://www.crivoice.org/creedremonstrants.html), or the Five Points of Arminianism. If readers object to this identification and branding both Arminianism and Pelagianism to be a heresy together, they are clearly taking a contrary position to the express teaching and legislative intent of the Canons of Dordt and the Church of Holland 1618-19. Take note of three proofs from the Canons of Dordt of identification of Remonstrant-Arminianism with the heresy of Pelagianism. Under the first (1) head of doctrine, rejection of errors number four, it speaks of the Remonstrants-Arminian error as one and the same with Pelagianism: “For this savors of the teaching of Pelagius”. Second (2), under the Second Head of doctrine, rejection of errors number four, the error is spoken as “from hell”, referencing the unlimited atonement teaching of the Remonstrant Arminian-Pelagians: “For these adjudge too contemptuously of the death of Christ, do in no wise acknowledge the most important fruit or benefit thereby gained, and bring again out of hell the Pelagian error.” Third (3), take note of these words appended at the end of the Canons of Dordt, answering the Remonstant-Arminian-Pelagian heresy: “Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves to consider the terrible judgement of God which awaits them for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many churches, for distressing the consciences of the weak, and for labouring to render suspect the society of the truly faithful.”
Against the natural interpretation of Scripture, the Arminian-Pelagian advance ‘free will’; and thereby they proclaim a comparatively weak born again experience and progressive sanctification, always subject to “free will”. The Arminian-Pelagians choose to believe in a contrived powerless new birth, and a subsequent weak prayer life in line with their rejection of the Sovereignty and Providence of God over all things (Gen. 24:14; John 1:12-13; Eph. 1:11; I John 5:14-15). Against the will of God revealed in Scripture, they intend to not ‘allow’ God providentially to order events, not elect his people unto salvation, nor effectually call them (Gen. 24:14; Psa. 65:5; 110:3; Rom. 9:16; Eph. 1:4, 11). The church members of these sectarian congregations are eventually to claim that they believe in the Scriptures to be authoritative, but not at the beginning in their initial basic profession of faith. Often rejecting the plain meaning of Scripture, they prove to not be committed to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and obedience (see e.g., Rom. 3:28-31; 9:16; Eph. 2:1-6; II Cor. 13:5; Jm 1:22). The church leaders deny the natural interpretation of Scripture that man’s will is enslaved to sin prior to conversion (Psa. 110:3; Rom. 6:16-18; Eph. 2:1-2), and that man’s will cannot believe unto saving faith without the biblical new birth (Psa. 65:5; 110:3; Jn. 1:12-13; 3:3-5). All these false teachers would state that their view of the new birth is the same as the profession of faith or that the new birth immediately follows their profession of faith with little change in the life, except an undefined commitment to serve the Lord in the salvation message. Some famous and well known 19th-20th centuries Arminian-Pelagians, holding to Four Points of the Remonstrance AND advocating “eternal security”, were the following sectarian “evangelists” and teachers: Charles Finney (see Lectures to Students; Autobiography), D. L. Moody (see numerous biographies), Billy Graham (40 year legacy recorded Radio and TV crusades), Charles Ryrie (see NIV Study Bible), and Bill Bright. All these sectarian Arminian Pelagian “evangelists” taught the simple faith false gospel with instant assurance upon profession of faith.
Bill Bright (1921-2003) was the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, later to be called Cru; he founded this para-church ministry in 1951. Along with the above evangelists, he was a staunch Arminian-Pelagian as well as Wesleyan; and they all held to a form of Antinomian-Perfectionism, committed to the Keswick-High Lifer movement. Bill Bright promoted this in his booklet called, Spirit-Filled Life (see https://crustore.org/discipleship-13/gospel-booklets-look-inside.html) to try and make nominal Christian converts more committed to Christ; but it repeatedly failed, because again, there was no required commitment to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and obedience, no commitment to repentance unto life, nor the moral law of God as the rule of right living. Furthermore, the nominal Christians were already granted “assurance of Salvation” and did not need to do anything further to have a contrived and false peace of conscience, when they prayed to receive Christ through the booklet called, Four Spiritual Laws (https://crustore.org/discipleship-13/gospel-booklets-look-inside.html). In this Arminian-Pelagian mission, from that point on, every thing is optional with a false eternal security; and the hearers who follow “the formula” are told never to doubt that the words in their repeated prayer worked and made them children of God bound for heaven. Of course, Scripture teaches that any and all professing believers are indeed to question his or her salvation based on the first prayer, until he or she follows the Scriptures in the future with doctrinal teaching by a faithful gospel minister to gain genuine biblical assurance of Salvation (see Rom. 10: 9-17; II Cor. 11:3-4; 13:5; II Pet. 1:10); and of course, even Jesus had made this point clear (see Jn. 2:23-25). Bill Bright, known to be a nice man, was a deceived Arminian-Pelagian heretic who subverted souls; and he was sincerely wrong (Acts 15:24; Gal. 1:6-9; II Tim. 2:14; 4:1-4).
With a faulty view of repentance and significantly reduced morality, Arminian-Pelagians are best described to be Antinomian, with some restraint by the law of nations or light of nature (Rom. 2:14-15) remaining on the hearts of all men; and the exegesis of passages like Romans 3:31, 6:14-22, I Corinthians 13:6, and I John 3:4, by their false teachers, is too often terribly confusing to the hearers or readers, stating that New Testament believers are not under the moral law as the all important rule of right living; but then still trying to salvage some morality by a vaguely defined “serving the Lord”. Being initially latent antinomians, they later prove to be just like the Antinomian sect that the English reformed evangelicals contended with in the 17th century (see Prov. 28:4, 9), claiming somehow to accept only New Testament morality without biblical repentance unto life; or they just take the bare nine commandments from the Old Testament, together with no covenant commitment in the pursuit of holiness. These neo-reformed advocates have no interest at all in singing Psalm 1:3: “But placeth his delight upon God’s law, and meditates on his law day and night” (1650 Psalter). These Arminian Pelagian neo-reformed sectarian churches should not be called broadly evangelical, which is a complete misnomer. This neo-reformed sect party is neo-evangelical, even anti-evangelical; and if followed consistently to the end of life, it cannot grant anyone entrance into heaven: hence a ‘perverted gospel’ indeed (Gal. 1:6-9; II Cor. 11:3-4; II Pet. 1:3-11; 2:1-3).
Being Antinomians with a false assurance in the simple faith false gospel, or no peace of conscience with justification by faith plus works, the Arminian-Pelagian advocates are known to have much infighting in their churches, forcing a false interpretation upon James 3:1-9. The preachers often stop short at verse nine and ignore the unfolding context (vs. 10-18), which teaches that the biblical new birth does result in substantial change in the life and control of the tongue; which the totally depraved sectarian, unregenerate state does not have. The pulpit preachers thereby consider the infighting, with malice, evil speaking, tale bearing, slander, and scorning, a part of the normal Christian life. This is one of the many practical results and serious problems with continued rejection of the biblical new birth/initial sanctification. According to James 3:1-18 taken as a whole, the biblical new birth does result in reasonable control of the transformed initially sanctified Christian tongue, with a tender conscience; and there will only be imperfection slips of the tongue or occasional serious sins, needing the required apologising and admission of sin for biblical necessary peacemaking (Rom. 12:18; Heb. 12:14; I Pet. 3:11). The true new birth/effectual calling results in repentant believers becoming doers of the Word and not just hearers (see Jm 1:22-24); but it must be remembered, that these professing sectarian Christians are granted assurance upon basic profession of faith without commitment to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and obedience. They are thereby perceived to have been granted exemptions to various chosen scriptural injunctions and moral duties. With category two and three parable of the sower professors of the faith (Matt. 13:22-23; Luke 8:14-15), these Arminian-Pelagian neo-reformed congregations suffer within from sectarian fools, the simple-minded (Prov. 1:22-23; 9:6-9; 22:10; Rom. 16:17-18), scorners (Prov. 9:7-8; 19:25, 29:8), flatterers (Prov. 26:20-28), and are filled with evil doers including busybodies (I Pet. 4:15). Their marriages and familial relations can easily be plagued with the same infighting, with no definite biblical solution apart from the biblical effectual calling-new birth. Some advocates even perceive to have the liberty to make temporary peace, but seriously consider a marital divorce without scriptural grounds (Matt. 19:1-9; I Cor. 7:10-15), if that is their chosen exemption.
The clever Arminian-Pelagian neo-reformed preachers have worked out a way of leading the followers with “itching ears” (II Tim. 4:3), corrupting the Word of God (II Cor. 2:17) by preaching in such a way to control medium to large congregations, claiming “fruit” in their ministry. Yet, this false view of ‘fruit bearing’ is not any where taught in Scripture; and some people are flowing in and out yearly at little notice to congregational size. Biblical fruit bearing has nothing to do with size of congregation. In accordance with Scripture, biblical fruit has everything to do with personal repentance unto life, the pursuit of holiness, and learning the gospel doctrines of Scripture: “Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8 and II Pet. 1:3-10 comp. with Psa. 1:1-3; 92:12-15; Col. 1:9-10). Moreover, rejecting the singing of almost all the psalms, this sect camp prefers to sing their 18th-19th centuries Arminian-Pelagian Antinomian uninspired hymns and then their mid-20th century choruses; wherein these short choruses are repeated over and over again like a hypnotizing mantra, falsely called “praise and worship” without sound doctrinal preaching. Since their false peace of conscience may be wrapped up in their sectarian church music, the attendees continue in opposition to Scripture prescribed worship. These sectarian churches should be rarely attended by reformed evangelical advocates, unless on holiday and wanting to temporarily experience such sectarian churches which have long perverted the gospel of Jesus Christ; and taking communion with sectarian Antinomians is condemned in Scripture (see I Cor. 11:17-32; Gal. 5:19-21 KJB). The followers of this sect, with much reduced morality, are prone to accepting national cultural norms to fill up many gaps in their contrived “morality”, in direct violation of the Scriptures (Deut. 4:5-9, 13, 32; 119:24, 97-98, 128-129; Matt. 5:17-20; Rom. 12:1-2; Col. 2:8).
The Moderate Calvinist Neo-Reformed Sectarian Party
The (2) Moderate Calvinist sectarian camp, whilst claiming to be “Calvinistic”, is indeed pseudo reformed; it is neither reformed nor evangelical. Based on their own salvation message and gleaned gospel doctrines, it is sectarian with heretical church officers. Just as the Arminian-Pelagians, some teach the simple faith false gospel and others teach justification by faith plus works. The church leaders hold essentially to the same three point Arminian-Pelagian theology, except they profess one point of the Canons of Dordt 1618-19, that is, Divine Election. This same false gospel is also found in ‘new life’ Moderate Calvinistic Baptist congregations, rejecting the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in favour of the 1644/46 Baptist Confession. No doubt there would be many to say that this is not a fair assessment of Moderate Calvinists who profess to believe in three or four points and some would claim to profess five points of the Canons of Dordt; but the objection is not valid, as it is at best bare bones “Calvinism”, and it is not the exact and thorough Canons of Dordt nor the teaching of John Calvin of the Helvetica Reformed Church. The Moderate Calvinist false teachers, whether advocating the simple faith false gospel or justification by faith plus works, teach the same powerless new birth as the Arminian-Pelagians (II Tim. 3:5). Even those Moderate Calvinists, who teach the simple faith false gospel as the Arminian-Pelagians, do not teach the Canons of Dordt view of perseverance of the faith, but a type of eternal security likened unto the four Point Arminian position, which dovetails with their false Antinomian repentance.
Like the Arminian-Pelagians, the simple faith false gospel Moderate Calvinists take the words of Jesus specifically to the newly born again thief at the crucifixion to be normative, for any preachers to say to some hearers upon accepting the salvation message presented. Yet the proper interpretation is that it is reserved for the Sovereign knowledge of the God-man, the Lord Jesus Christ, to know whether or not someone is truly a born again Christian at the time of profession of faith and profession of obedience (comp. Luke 23:39-43; with Matt. 13:18-13; Luke 8:11-15; II Cor. 13:5; I Tim. 4:16; II Pet. 1:3-10). For an example of a 20th century, Moderate Calvinist view of a false salvation message, D. James Kennedy (1930-2007) had his own neo-reformed Antinomian “lay evangelism”, without biblical repentance unto life. Therefore, being a “lay evangelism” training, it spread the simple faith false gospel like it was “going out of style”; which indeed, it did “go out of style” in the long run, even though it appeared to have some good results initially in the pastorate of D. James Kennedy. He gained followers for his congregation by his distinctive personality and not by the true gospel of free grace. In time, Evangelism Explosion did contribute to major declension in formerly Protestant evangelical countries, with hardened hearers: “by reason of whom the way of truth is evil spoken of” (see II Pet. 2:2b).
D. James Kennedy was a Moderate Calvinist Presbyterian Church of America pastor for more than 40 years in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Evangelism Explosion teaches the simple faith false gospel with instant assurance upon a basic profession of faith, without clarity in duties to the moral law of God. Evangelism Explosion does not direct the sinner to the moral law of God in biblical repentance unto life. It only directs the sinner to sin and the law under the heading ‘Man’, in order to lead the sinner to justifying faith. There is only one mention of some kind of duty under ‘repentance’, that is, ‘pleasing to God’ without definition: “Be willing to turn from anything that is not pleasing to Him. He will reveal His will to you as you grow in your relationship with Him”; this is a false view of the new birth and initial sanctification, assuming that the sinner cannot exercise reformed evangelical repentance unto life (see WCF 15:1-3). Furthermore, this is an Antinomian repentance and then the granting of assurance without evidence of the new birth/initial sanctification (I Thess. 1:4-11; II Tim. 2:19; II Pet. 1:3-10; I Jn 2:3-6; II Jn. 4-6). It is clearly contrary to the Scriptures (Jn 2:23-25; I Cor. 11:3-4; 13:5; I Thess. 1:4-11; II Pet. 1:10) to inform the new professing Christian to claim his “spiritual birthday”, that is, the day the person accepts the presented false salvation message. Evangelism Explosion teaches a false and heretical unbiblical assurance; and it is a definite example of the Moderate Calvinist neo-reformed ‘justifying faith alone’, which is not biblical saving faith (see https://evangelismexplosion.org/resources/steps-to-life/).
D. James Kennedy’s salvation message presentation was notably modelled after Arminian-Pelagian Bill Bright’s Four Spiritual Laws (https://crustore.org/4-spiritual-laws-english.html), simple faith false gospel message. He sought to improve on the Four Spiritual Laws in favour of his Moderate Calvinism simple faith false gospel. Evangelism Explosion does avoid the Keswick-Higher Life or “Spirit-filled life”. The Moderate Calvinist teaches in error that Romans 6:1-22 is a passage on progressive sanctification; and the Keswick Higher Life movement teaches in error that it is a passage on “jumping” to a higher Christian life; but neither interpretation is the natural interpretation of the passage. The natural interpretation of Romans 6:1-22 is, that it is a passage on initial sanctification; and upon effectual calling-new birth, there will be initial sanctification and all saving graces to continue on in progressive sanctification with perseverance in the faith. A person is either born again and initially sanctified by the Holy Spirit; or the person is not born again, not initially sanctified. When the Holy Spirit falls upon an elect sinner in the new birth, ordinarily during the preaching of reformed evangelical gospel body of divinity (Psa. 65:4; 110:3; Jn 6:44, 65; Rom. 10:14, 17; II Tim. 2:19; I Pet. 2:22-25), the elect sinner will exercise true saving faith and will soon have it displayed in fruit bearing in doctrine and morality (see WCF 14:1-2).
Many of the Moderate Calvinists had been continuing in the same denomination with the Arminian-Pelagians and Unitarian-Modernists before the disruption of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (1935), claiming that the Presbyterian church courts finally forced them out with the discipline of ministers serving on the Independent Presbyterian Mission Board. They did not want to support the Unitarian Modernists in the mission enterprise of the church. The same thing was claimed by Moderate Calvinist neo-reformed church officers upon forming the Presbyterian Church of America (1974). They claimed that they were forced out by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the United States (in the south), when women elders were pressed upon all sessions; however, the gospel of Jesus Christ had long been perverted in the denominations, without church court significant complaint and protest by the so-called “conservatives”. Then those professing reformed church officers forming the United Reformed Church (1996), argued in the same manner for finally departing from the Christian Reformed Church. Neo-reformed Moderate Calvinists continued in the Presbyterian Church of England, the Presbyterian Church of Australia, and the Presbyterian Church of Canada, remaining in union with the Unitarian-Modernists until there was a merger with Methodists and Congregationalists, forming the Uniting Church (1976). It is against the natural meaning of pertinent Scriptures on gospel and church unity to remain in union with heretics (Rom. 16:17; I Cor. 1:10; Gal. 1:6-9; II Tim. 3:1-5; Tit. 3:10-11; Jude 3-4 KJB). It further begs the question that the Moderate Calvinist church officers are sectarians themselves, remaining in church courts that pass decisions deliberately against the gospel of Jesus Christ, without significant protest. Consider three representative ministers of these three camps sitting in a home together trying to each present a salvation message to an interested married couple, with three sectarian messages and few similar doctrines but many contradictory “gospel” differences. Who would the married couple believe? Would the Moderate Calvinist condemn the other two ministers, as the apostle Paul, Peter, and Jude would? The consistent answer is that the neo-reformed Moderate Calvinists would try to get along. Having continued in church union for a number of years past the obvious point of clarity of a perverted gospel, many Moderate Calvinist church officers assisted in the world speaking evil of the way of truth (II Pet. 2:2).
Like the Arminian-Pelagians, the neo-reformed Moderate Calvinists speak of the authority of the Scriptures, but often not the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and practice; and many do not hold to Providential Preservation of the Scriptures, but promote the use of the NIV or the ESV. Thereby, it is common among these neo-reformed church officers to reject six day creationism, failing to compare Scripture with Scripture (Gen. 1:1-2:3; Exo. 20:11). In practical outworking, many Moderate Calvinist (also Arminian-Pelagians) church officers have followed the evolutionists, changing drunkenness to evolutionary “alcoholism”, horror of conscience to evolutionary “depression”, and madness to “Alzheimers”; and serious diseases are often perceived to be simply caused by random factors (see Deut. 28:15, 28, 58-61) *. They also reject the perpetual 4th Commandment on both their contrived principle and the pressure of the cares of the world (see Luke 8:14). Following the so-called “scholars” in promoting the NIV and ESV, there is little or no concern for their open Communion or quick session controlled communion, with a mere basic warning just before distribution of the elements or in a short session meeting; and there is no concern that heresy is a scandalous sin in the Greek Text needing definite repentance (I Cor. 11:18-19; Gal. 5:19-21 KJB). As many church officers are theistic evolutionists and not concerned for the exact elements in the Lord’s Supper, so these neo-reformed church officers easily compromise to employ grape juice as well as gluten-free ‘crackers’. Instead, in accordance with Scripture, the required elements are to be organic original seed bread and wine for Communion. They just have no sound scriptural concept of creation ordinances compared with church ordinances. The senior pastors, professors of theology, and senior ruling elders are quite satisfied that the term heresy was almost eradicated from their sectarian Bible versions by the so-called Greek scholars.
The Moderate Calvinist Oppose Biblical Repentance Unto Life
The Moderate Calvinist neo-reformed preachers oppose biblical repentance unto life, ignoring clarifying Scriptural passages on repentance time and time again (see Luke 3:3-14; John 14:13; Acts 2:37-42; II Tim. 2:19). With the church leaders having a faulty view of repentance and significantly reduced morality, their salvation message is sectarian and best described as antinomian, with a typical reduced morality according to the Moderate Calvinist simple faith false gospel, whilst others react in favour of justification by faith plus works with a similar reduced morality. Who did these preachers learn the simple faith false gospel from? The answer is, it came from Louis Berkhof (1873-1957) among others. Why was this? Simply put, because he taught six day creationism, and was an alternative to C. Hodge’s Systematic Theology, who was not a six day creationist. In the 21st century, Berkhof’s Systematic Theology is still the preferred training manual for professing “reformed” Theological Colleges; but L. Berkhof was neo-reformed sectarian, and this could have been discovered in theological training by anyone who actually took the time to read and study the assignments. After the reader has to endure the regular use of the term ‘psychology’ under the section on “Conversion”, consider the explanation of Louis Berkhof on “scriptural” ‘repentance’, which is not scriptural (Note: the bold is the writer’s addition). Below is a quote of the whole paragraph (taken from VII Conversion: The Scriptural View of Repentance):
Over against this external view of repentance the Scriptural idea should be maintained. According to Scripture repentance is wholly an inward act, and should not be confounded with the change of life that proceeds from it. Confession of sin and reparation of wrongs are fruits of repentance. Repentance is only a negative condition, and not a positive means of salvation. While it is the sinner’s present duty, it does not offset the claims of the law on account of past transgressions. Moreover, true repentance never exists except in conjunction with faith, while, on the other hand, wherever there is true faith, there is also real repentance. The two are but different aspects of the same turning, — a turning away from sin in the direction of God. Luther sometimes spoke of a repentance preceding faith, but seems nevertheless to have agreed with Calvin in regarding true repentance as one of the fruits of faith. Lutherans are wont to stress the fact that repentance is wrought by the law and faith by the gospel. It should be borne in mind, however, that the two cannot be separated; they are simply complementary parts of the same process.
The above quote from L. Berkhof is supposed to be an explanation of scriptural repentance; it is indeed typical of many neo-reformed sectarian preaching on “repentance”. First, this mid 20th century neo-reformed professor of theology made a distinction between the inward act of repentance and the outward act of repentance, but no where made in Scripture nor in the Westminster Standards; and he did not come back to clarify the outward act of repentance in terms of purposing and endeavouring to live by the moral law of God as a necessary part of repentance unto life. In fact, L. Berkhof wrongly declared the outward part to be unscriptural. Secondly, his mention of ‘confession of sin’ and ‘reparation of wrongs’ is not explained with any clarity, except more confusion. Thirdly, in shortened form, he defined repentance in this way: “a turning away from sin in the direction of God”; this statement sounds almost Unitarian-Modernist. Berkhof’s explanation of repentance promotes Antinomianism, not requiring turning from sin to commit to the moral law as the rule of right living. The only mention of the ‘law’ in the above quote has to do with justification. Compare Berkhof’s confusing scatterbrain definition of repentance with the clarity of the Westminster Confession on repentance unto life: “By it, a sinner, out of the sight and sense not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sin, as contrary to the holy nature, and righteous law of God; and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him, in all the ways of His commandments” (from WCF 15:2).
Obviously, Louis Berkhof ushered in the decline of the Christian Reformed Church, with his teaching of another body of divinity gospel doctrines. If any readers desire to study this Systematic Theology on Conversion, Regeneration and Effectual Calling, this writer would suggest reading the online version (https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/systematic-theology-louis-berkhof) and not purchasing this sectarian book. It should only be read for comparative research to learn first hand of the neo-reformed perverted gospel, being taught to students for the ministry in sectarian neo-reformed theological training in Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom.
Some Theonomic Reconstructionists Were Never “Truly Reformed”
In the 1980s, in conformity with the Roman Catholic-Greek Orthodox sect, a Moderate Calvinist theonomic reconstructionist party infected some denominations in favour of young child communion along with weekly communion, displaying their rejection of reformed evangelical repentance unto life. It came to be freely practised in many congregations in the OPC and the PCAmerica. It began with R. J. Rushdoony, in the Institutes of Biblical Law, wherein he openly took an exception to WCF 19:4, besides unashamedly promoting young child communion, against Larger Catechism QA 171-177. His interpretation of Matthew 5:16-20 favoured that of the Roman Catholic-Greek Orthodox sect. Moreover, contrary to Larger Catechism QA 89-90 (see Scripture proof-texts), some theonomic reconstructionists brought in the teaching that the final judgment will include the secret sins of believers, already forgiven and covered under the blood of Christ (see Psa. 32:1-2; 103:11-12). Having failed to believe in the on-going covenant of works (Rom. 1:31; Gal. 3:10), they cannot distinguish between evangelistic passages or passages explaining the covenant of works; and thereby they misinterpret such passages (see Matt. 12:31-37; Rom. 2:6-16). This is at the very least a concession to justification by faith plus works, if not completely in agreement with the same. This Moderate Calvinist theonomic reconstructionists did not advance biblical repentance unto life and were indeed weak on the moral law (including weak on moral justice), but emphasised the ceremonial law and the judicial laws; and they were prone to justification by faith plus works. Therefore, many began promoting or endorsing the Roman Catholic/Orthodox sect; and some even perverted to the Roman Catholic church and the Greek Orthodox church. Others perverted to the present Church of England and noticeably not uniting with the secessionists Church of England (Continuing, 1996, http://cofec.org/).
Moderate Calvinist Departure from Biblical Saving Faith
Let us now consider the legacy of neo-reformed Moderate Calvinist pastor G. I. Williamson (1925- ). He held pastorates in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, the Reformed Churches of New Zealand (RChNZ), and in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). He retired from the full time pastorate (2011) after serving in OPC Bismarck, North Dakota. As a neo-reformed minister, G. I. Williamson had three strikes against him in failure to uphold the reformed evangelical faith. First (1), he did not teach biblical repentance unto life in his study guides on the Westminster Confession and the Shorter Catechism. Second (2), contrary to Larger Catechism QA 171-177, G. I. Williamson supported a majority committee report in the OPC in the 1988 commending assumptive regeneration along with young child Communion (see http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=191), against I Corinthians 11:18-19 (see KJB and the Geneva Bible). Typical of the OPC, the General Assembly made a decision, not a decree (Acts 16:4, Comp. ESV with KJB and Geneva Bible). The OPC church officers ended up simply commending two minority reports and the majority report, without officially adopting any view (see http://opc.org/qa.html?question_id=191); and they especially did not uphold the Westminster Church Standards. Instead they allowed departure from it. Third, (3) seemly to correct his earlier Antinomian view of repentance (see below), G. I. Williamson spoke in defence of an elder in the OPC General Assembly (2004), who had been convicted in the Philadelphia Presbytery of teaching justification by faith plus works (i.e., Shepherdism). The elder was rebuked with clarity by a gospel minister on the floor of the OPC General Assembly 2004, when the minister ‘shouted’ and made the point as clear as it is in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Larger Catechism: with reference to what place personal good works are considered in justification before God? Answer, “None! it is part of theology 101”. Subsequently, G. I. Williamson was rebuked as well. Ultimately, the elder escaped final conviction by the OPC General Assembly 2004 for teaching ‘Shepherdism’ in the Philadelphia Presbytery of the OPC; and the writer of this article recorded his dissenting negative vote upholding the original conviction.
At the same OPC General Assembly 2004, another minister was on appeal, having been convicted in the Southern California Presbytery for teaching a view of the New Covenant and the moral law, which is completely out of accord with the Westminster Standards; and it happens to be in accord with the Baptist Confession of 1646 (see 1646 Art. 29; http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1646lbc.htm). This minister had been charged and convicted in the Presbytery for preaching against the exact view of the moral law taught in the Westminster Church Standards. The same minister had also been caught refusing to condemn same sex marriage in an OPC mission congregation within the Presbytery; this very point was raised on the floor of the General Assembly by the writer of this article (referencing LCQA 139). At the General Assembly 2004, the minister on trial was ultimately convicted by roughly 53% of the voting ministers and elders for departure from the Westminster Confession, Larger and Shorter Catechisms on the moral law; but roughly 47% voted ‘No’, with the General Assembly allowing for recorded dissenting votes and recorded protests over gospel doctrines meant to be part of the minimum gospel doctrines for the Lord’s Supper in a reformed evangelical church. The minister on trial was ‘defrocked’ (i.e., removed from the office of the gospel ministry); but those ministers and elders supporting the ‘defrocked’ minister, with recorded dissents and protests, escaped discipline. So at the same General Assembly, there were serious divisions over the gospel of free grace, including justification by grace through faith alone, repentance unto life, and the moral law. Every voting delegate who was there witnessed what happened at the OPC General Assembly 2004; and memories can be refreshed by reading the Minutes of the OPC General Assembly 2004.
The question arises, though, why did less than 5% of the OPC congregational ministers and elders secede in 2004-2005 over this OPC General Assembly blunder in 2004, wherein there were significant dissents, protests, and the refusal of a multitude of sectarian church officers to uphold the reformed evangelical faith? The answer to the question lies within the mindset of many of the church officers who did not understand biblical saving faith and had been using the NIV and the ESV sectarian Bibles: (1) heresy and another gospel is not a concern in the gospel body of divinity, as the term ‘sect’ had been removed from Acts 15:5; and the term ‘heresy’ had been removed from I Corinthians 11:18-19, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:10-11; with the concept of heresy separated from the gospel body of divinity, instead the focus becomes on the church officers refusing to compromise over biblical saving faith with the implied charge of ‘schism’; Romans 16:17 has been reinterpreted in light of the sectarian translation of I Corinthians 11:18-19, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:10-11 in the RSV, NIV, and the ESV (comp. to KJB, Geneva Bible); (2) furthermore, in a semi-Presbyterian denomination, the determinations of a given general synod are perceived to be mere decisions for that year and not synodical decrees to be kept in the congregations (see Acts 16:4, NIV, ESV sectarian Bibles comp. to KJB, Geneva Bible); (3) the Westminster Standards and the interpretation thereof is not as the original writers and signers intended, but as individual consciences would have it and the opinion of the will of the majority, even simple majority, at a given General Assembly meeting; and of course, the simple majority one year in interpretation of the Westminster Standards could change and vote a different way the next year; (4) finally, Galatians 1:6-9 and Philippians 1:27 have no real practical meaning in the neo-reformed sectarian controlled semi-Presbyterian denominations.
To return to the legacy of OPC minister G. I. Williamson, on strike number two (2), G. I. Williamson had specifically implemented young child communion in his pastorate in OPC Bethel Bismarck, North Dakota. He later regretted his departure from the Westminster Church Standards on young child communion on a denominational public email forum. Even so, the damage had been done in his former pastorate in North Dakota. OPC Bethel Bismarck, North Dakota definitely advocates the simple ‘faith alone’ false summary of Salvation (see https://www.bethelopc.net/what-we-believe/).
Wherever G. I. Williamson has had pastorates, particularly in the RChNZ and in the OPC, there is little left of his legacy of teaching six day creationism and exclusive psalmody. There seems to be three reasons for this: (1) G. I. Williamson has never understood nor taught biblical repentance unto life, as clearly set forth in the Westminster Church Standards. He has never upgraded his study guides with thorough reformed evangelical corrections; (2) he is not known for promoting Larger Catechism/Shorter Catechism catechetical preaching; and (3) G. I. Williamson had long been teaching assumptive regeneration of Baptised children, which can easily lend itself to young child communion and did indeed. Once young child communion is introduced even session controlled communion for transfer professing Christians gets severely weakened; and without biblical repentance unto life proclaimed from the pulpit, Scripture prescribed worship (i.e., 2nd commandment, regular principle of worship) becomes optional along with any portion of the moral law, as it suits individuals; (4) Moreover, the pursuit of holiness and progressive sanctification becomes optional in the minds of the communicant members. This will be the case no matter what doctrinal and moral precepts may be taught from the pulpit, because the true gospel doctrine repentance unto life was severely compromised.
G. I. Williamson wrote the study guides in the Westminster Confession with a very simplistic writing style, or what is called a ‘popular’, rather than an academic style. Whilst appealing to some people, this manner of writing is not suitable for training men for church office. No minister should ever write an overly simplified explanation of the Westminster Confession for ministers of the gospel, ruling elders or deacons. If students for the ministry, and others appearing to be ready to train to be elders and deacons, cannot understand the Westminster Confession or the Larger Catechism as plainly written, the gospel ministry has long failed in the pulpit ministry. In his study guide of the Westminster Confession, G. I. Williamson writes very little explanation of WCF 15:2 and writes no explanation of the crucial last part of section 2, concerning purposeful keeping of the commandments of God, which is the moral law of God. For definite clarity with repetition, this writer quotes it again as above: “…and upon the apprehension of His mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavouring to walk with Him, in all the ways of His commandments” (from WCF 15:2).
G. I. Williamson’s study guide of the Shorter Catechism is definitely an example of writing to promote the neo-reformed gospel doctrines and not in accordance with the legislative intent of the Shorter Catechism.** In his explanation of the Shorter Catechism QA 86 and 87, he promotes the simple faith false gospel view of repentance; and he defines the turning in repentance in this manner: “The sinner must turn from sin and turn to Christ in trust and dependence”; and throughout the explanation there is no mention of the pursuit of holiness by the moral law of God. This is a neo-reformed revision of repentance and woven into a simple faith false gospel. Then Williamson goes on to give a classic misinterpretation of I Corinthians 8:1, stating that “mere knowledge only makes us proud”. Dealing with the controversy of ‘meat offered unto idols’, the Scripture verse reads: “Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth.” This verse definitely refers to sectarian knowledge which indeed ‘puffeth up’, and not scriptural doctrinal knowledge. There is an overwhelming set of verses in the Old Testament and in the New Testament requiring hearers to study the Word of God and be under the preaching of a faithful teaching ministry, without any fear of gaining too much Scripture knowledge. Only nominal Christians have to worry about knowledge puffing them up, as they can get filled with sectarian false doctrines, including neo-reformed sectarian false doctrines without regeneration. As far as ‘charity’ edifying is concerned, it must be scriptural ‘charity’ in accordance with the gospel body of divinity and the all important moral law to define biblical ‘love’, as briefly stated in I Corinthians 13:6: “Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth.”
G. I. Williamson put it this way: “For example, a man may know of the doctrines of the Christian faith ‘backwards and forwards’, so to speak and yet not be converted. Mere knowledge only makes us proud (I Cor. 8:1).” Besides almost hyper-calvinistic, even wrongly intimating a warning to unregenerate people about starting to regularly come to a faithful church to hear the Word preached, this is a straw man and not at all what the Apostle was conveying in I Corinthians 8:1. An unregenerate man cannot learn the gospel body of divinity “backwards and forwards, so to speak”. His totally depraved nature does not have the capacity to do so. An unregenerate person may indeed gain some perverted gospel knowledge, remaining in the flesh, with some restraint behaviour (see Jer. 17:9-10; Rom. 8:5-14; Gal. 3:1-4). In contrast, a truly born again Christian will become meek and grow more and more to love the truth, studying the Scriptures “backwards and forwards, so to speak”. He will grow in grace and the knowledge of Jesus Christ (see II Pet. 3:18), praying to be sanctified in the truth (see John 17:7); but what is a neo-reformed sectarian preacher worried about in this regard, in order to severely misinterpret and misapply I Corinthians 8:1? He has failed to follow the Westminster Confession biblical manner of interpreting Scripture and especially with a difficult verse: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly” (WCF 1:9). Was G. I. Williamson concerned about a reformed evangelical elder having the necessary knowledge to implement Titus 3:10-11 (KJB) and expose neo-reformed gospel departures (Gal. 1:6-9); or was he worried about a reformed evangelical walking out of the congregation for the last time, because the neo-reformed preaching is NOT reformed evangelical?
Redemptive Historical Anti-Reformed Evangelical Preaching
Besides the Arminian-Pelagian “dispensational” Baptist view of preaching and hermeneutics, “dispensational” redemptive historical preaching from Holland (1930s) found its way into many professing “reformed” churches, including the Christian Reformed Church, the Canadian Reformed Churches, the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, the Presbyterian Church of America, and the Reformed Churches of New Zealand. This neo-reformed preaching hermeneutic rejects the perpetual covenant of works in favour of the covenant of works ending at the fall; but then the heretical teaching adds a clever republication “covenant of works” theory during the period from Moses to the time of Christ. Thereby, these sectarians allege that the Old Testament moral law was specifically republished during that period, but in favour of justification by faith plus works. Against the Westminster Confession of Faith, they speak of the New Testament in contrast to the Old Testament as the age of grace, when the covenant of grace is taught with saving faith in both Testaments (see WCF 7:5; 20:1). There are two neo-reformed camps among the redemptive historical preachers: (1) One camp promotes justification by faith alone without biblical repentance unto life for the New Testament period; and (2) the second camp teaches justification by faith plus works, without biblical repentance unto life in the New Testament period. Norman Shepherd, an example of the latter, was a leading proponent of redemptive historical preaching teaching justification by faith plus works in the mid 20th century. He attempted to display his concerns over Antinomianism against the simple faith false gospel, but failed to do it by teaching biblical repentance unto life along with justification by grace through faith alone (see Norman Shepherd, The Call of Grace). N. Shepherd was a former Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (1963-1981); and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) 2004 General Assembly refused to discipline an elder who unashamedly supported “Shepherdism” (see 2004 Minutes of the OPC General Assembly). This was one of the reasons for a split in the OPC and the forming of the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church (see www.gracehanover.org). Any “Christian” teacher that cannot understand, that Norman Shepherd’s “justification is by obedient faith” is clearly justification by faith plus works, is not qualified to teach, nor be a church officer (see also James Jordan, Peter Liethart, Andrew Sandlin and Rich Lusk, Obedient Faith: A Fesscrhift for Norman Shepherd).
Where did the neo-reformed Arminian-Pelagian and Moderate Calvinist get the false interpretation that King Solomon was a long term backslider? They did not get it from reformed evangelical effectual calling or perseverance in the faith (Phil. 1:6; I Pet. 1:5). It came from the simple faith false gospel and a false eternal security; and the reaction to this false gospel should not be another false gospel teaching, that is, justification by faith plus works. Only a false hermeneutic would take narrative passages on the life of Solomon and ignore doctrinal passages which teaches effectual calling/new birth and perseverance of the saints. The true explanation of saving faith is a definite commitment to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and obedience, justification by grace through faith alone, and repentance unto life. The proper interpretation of the life of Solomon was that he was a long term basic adherent of the Christian faith, until his definite conversion around the age of 60, wherein he became a Prophet;*** and backsliding, as taught in the Larger Catechism (see LCQA 113, proof-texts for “backsliding from it”), refers to apostasy from the true gospel of free grace, even falling away into sectarianism and unto a false gospel (see Acts 15:5, 24; Gal. 1:6-9; II Tim. 2:14-16; Heb. 6:4-6; I Jn 2:19). A backslider is bewitched and has been subverted in favour of another gospel or false religion (see Gal. 2:15-3:10; I Jn. 2:19).
Similar to the Roman Catholic/Orthodox sect(s) and the Arminian Pelagians, Moderate Calvinist sectarians have significantly reduced the Ten Commandments, besides many virtually ignoring two commandments, the 2nd and the 4th commandments. Categorically ignoring the 2nd commandment, many neo-reformed advocates have no issue with pictures of Christ in public worship or in family worship, if they even have family worship with little concern for the pursuit of holiness. So not to be “legalistic”, as it is wrongly labelled, nor too serious about the law, many neo-reformed sectarian church officers promote ever-progressive antinomian worship, oppose the biblical tithe, and have weak church attending members with little more than one service on the Christian Sabbath; or they ‘feel’ free to go on holiday, camping, and not attend church at all. As they fail to trust in the Providence of God, many have no problem with trading on the Lord’s Day nor definite work, with little concern whether or not it is a definite work of necessity or mercy (Matt. 13:22; Luk. 8:14). Many of these neo-reformed church officers are happy with uninspired Arminian-Pelagian Antinomian hymns (e.g., “Trust and Obey”, “That Old Rugged Cross”). They do not care to have their singing correspond with the reformed confessions and catechisms (see Synod of Dordt Church Order/1618-19, Art. 69; WCF 21:5). With reference to their weakened 6th commandment, many speak of pro-life instead of anti-abortion, adding to the Larger Catechism biblical exceptions to ‘killing’ (see LCQA 136); and many have trouble defending the right of personal defence even with the express words of Jesus, upholding the moral right of self-defence (Exo.22:2-4; Matt. 5:16-20; Luke 22:35-38). The 7th commandment is reduced in their deliberate altered translation of I Corinthians 6:9-11 and 7:1-2 (comp. NIV and ESV with KJV and Geneva Bible). Being advocates of the simple faith false gospel or justification by faith plus works, some of these neo-reformed advocates could even divorce taking an exemption to peacemaking in Scripture and the biblical prohibition against divorce. In Scripture, there are only two grounds for divorce and remarriage in time, namely, adultery (Matt. 19:9) and desertion (I Cor. 7:10-15). Some neo-reformed adherents may separate or divorce on the grounds of ‘incompatibility’; and in the sectarian NIV, there was even a Roman Catholic translation of the I Corinthians 7:1-2 in favour of prohibition of marriage from the 1970s until the second edition; and then it was corrected in favour of the slightly better but poorly translated ESV, shortly after the year 2000. With the 1st edition translation “that it is good not to marry”, were the NIV neo-reformed translators trying to appease the Vatican representatives on the translation work? Or were they dealing with a great concern to marry the wrong neo-reformed sectarian professing Christian which was prone to happen frequently?
The Moderate Calvinist church officers committed to the NIV or the ESV are quite satisfied with the change in translation of Acts 15:5 and 16:4, altering sect to party and decrees to ‘decisions’ (see NIV, ESV). Since the decrees in these semi-Presbyterian denominations are not church law, but decisions for that year’s synod alone, these below listed denominations are semi-presbyterian or semi-congregational and stand in disagreement with the view of the authority of synods in the Synod of Dordt 1618-19 Church Order (Art. 36) and the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government (Of Synodical Assemblies). So these below mentioned denominations are set up to withstand a movement by any reformed evangelical church officers within to reform these churches by synodical decree.
At the time of this article, the following denominations are predominately controlled by neo-reformed Moderate Calvinist ministers and ruling elders: Associated Presbyterian Churches, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ESV), the Canadian Reformed Churches (NIV), the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Northern Ireland, as well as in England and Wales (ESV, NIV), the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of North America (NIV), the Free Church of Scotland (NIV, ESV), the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (NIV, ESV), the Presbyterian Church of America (NIV, ESV), the Presbyterian Church of Australia (NIV, ESV), the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia (synod endorsed NIV, 1975), Reformed Churches of New Zealand (ESV), the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (NIV, ESV), the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (ESV), the Reformed Church in the United States (ESV), the Westminster Presbyterian Church of Australia (NIV, ESV), and the United Reformed Churches (NIV, ESV). The church officers in these denominations have either tolerated or promoted the simple faith false gospel and some have tolerated justification by faith plus works.
With reference to the old Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland (1743), the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (1763), and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (1798), the general synods continued until the early 1960s, requiring catechetical preaching, teaching, and close catechetical Communion. Then the General Synods decreed a form of session-controlled communion, with essentially one elder having a five to ten minute chat at the door on the Lord’s Day of Communion; and they later endorsed the NIV and ESV. The controlling Moderate Calvinist neo-reformed camp has made it almost impossible for anyone known to be dedicated to the reformed evangelical faith to survive a ministerial transfer examination into these sister denominations and receive a call to the pastorate.
Once Moderate Calvinist sectarian church officers took control of Presbyterian and professing reformed denominations with the simple false gospel message or justification by faith plus works, the neo-reformed church professors and some pastors were able to continue to confuse the meaning of ‘schism’; and thereby they could try and condemn any reformed evangelical protest and secession over the first mark of a faithful church (Belgic Con. art. 29; WCF 25:3). Following Christ’s and the Apostles’ example of preaching against the sects, as well as Romans 16:17, I Corinthians 1:10, II Timothy 4:1-4, and Titus 3:10-11, however, the biblical course of action is to indeed protest, listing of gospel doctrinal departures, secession, and reconstituting of a Presbyterian reformed evangelical denomination.
The Bunyanite Neo-Reformed Sectarian Party
The (3) Bunyanite camp is a sect that plagued some of the 17th century Baptist Churches of England confessing the 1644 London Confession and perhaps some Congregational-Independent congregations, even though the system of theology is not in accord with the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order (1658); but the sect of Bunyanism would have had no significant affect upon the 17th century Church of Scotland or the Church of England through 1662 and the Presbyterian Church of England thereafter, until the merger around the turn of the 18th century with the Congregational-Independents. There are two reasons for this: (1) John Bunyan opposed any ordination or licensure to preach the gospel; (2) with verifiable total subscription to the Westminster Church Standards required of all church officers, Bunyanism cannot be allowed in the pulpits with honest and proper implementation. Anyone thoroughly versed in the Westminster Church Standards, and fully subscribes to the same, can compare and contrast with the gospel message of John Bunyan’s, noting that it is severely contrary to the reformed evangelical faith.
John Bunyan exposed himself in his book, Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, that he was not teaching predestination perseverance in the faith, having failed to understand how to make one’s calling and election sure (II Pet. 1:10). Instead, he focused on competing to be the ‘chief of sinners’ with the Apostle Paul, when the Apostle was clearly speaking of his former life before he was effectually called (see I Tim. 1:12-13). This displays that Bunyan’s manner of interpreting Scripture was very flawed and dangerous, before and after he claimed that he finally obtained assurance of Salvation; but he never did explain his gaining of assurance, in accordance with the reformed evangelical faith. In the very section that Bunyan claimed to gain assurance, he intimated that Hebrews 12:22-24 gave him peace and some kind of assurance. This displays his complete disagreement with Westminster Confession 18:1-2. It is not by reading a passage of Scripture that one gains assurance of Salvation; but it comes by learning the body of divinity gospel doctrines and biblical fruit displayed in one’s life, that repentant believers gain assurance of Salvation.
This writer contends that Bunyan added to his interpretation of his “conversion” experience, as he developed his brand of neo-reformed sectarian theology. John Bunyan’s ‘scatterbrained’ “conversion” should have never been put to print nor reprinted; and it has caused some readers and hearers in neo-reformed congregations to think that this is an example of hypercalvinism. It is probably best described as an example of the severe error of preparationism. Since so many neo-reformed Baptists appreciate John Bunyan’s Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinner, the book has been online for anyone wanting to compare this sectarian book with the Westminster Church Standards or the Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, and note the heresies of John Bunyan.
Consider these words of John Bunyan in his conclusion of Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners: “6. I find to this day seven abominations in my heart; 1. Inclinations to unbelief. 2. Suddenly to forget the love and mercy that Christ manifesteth; 3. A leaning to the works of the law; 4. Wanderings and coldness in prayer; 5. To forget to watch for that I pray for; 6. Apt to murmur because I have no more, and yet ready to abuse what I have; 7. I can do none of those things which God commands me, but my corruptions will thrust in themselves; When I would do good, evil is present with me” These are the ramblings of a sectarian with false humility and a little Scripture taking out of context; but it is not the Protestant evangelical faith. Note the words “to this day”; he continued to hold this false teaching after his supposed conversion and eventually gained his notion of ‘peace of conscience’.
The expression “seven abominations in my heart” is a false interpretation of Proverbs 26:20-28, taken completely out of context, and specifically from verse 26: “When he speaketh fair, believe him not: for there are seven abominations in his heart”. This passage of Scripture is directed at a nominal Christian (see ‘false brethren’, II Cor. 11:26) practising tale bearing, flattery, and deceit; and it is not referring to a repentant believer in the pursuit of holiness. Those who have severe 9th commandment issues should not have assurance of Salvation. Bunyan held to a false interpretation of when the Old Testament prophets spoke of abominations concerning unregenerates in the Church of Israel, before and after the Babylonian captivity of Israel. Moreover, he did not understand the difference between the promptings of demons and a regenerate mind. The term ‘abominations’ is the Old Testament counter part to scandalous sin (see WCF 15:6) or offenses (see Matt. 18:6-9) in the New Testament (see Matt. 18:6-9; the Greek word behind ‘offences’ is scandalos). Any professing Christian, who believes that a repentant believer can have seven abominations in his heart knows little or nothing of the gospel body of divinity in the Protestant evangelical faith. He or she needs to be taught the Shorter Catechism and to make sure not to miss the important teaching, with proof-texts, of some sins more heinous in the sight of God than others (see SCQA 82-84) ; and he or she must not confuse gross or scandalous sins, with imperfections sins or passing sinful thoughts of vanity (Psa. 19:12-13; 119:113; Rom. 7:25) remaining in a repentant-believer. There are only two reasonable conclusions, it would seem, that a reformed evangelical can come to about Bunyan’s “conversion” experience: (1) either he never gained biblical assurance taught in the Westminster Confession 18:1-2; or (2) he eventually did, but never had time to correct his interpretation of his “conversion” experience before his death.
A true repentant believer grounded and settled in the gospel body of divinity does not have (1) ‘inclinations to unbelief’. The true believer simply becomes better at trusting with patience and maturity. (4) True believers in Christ do not have ‘coldness in prayer’. Genuine repentant believers only have normal difficulty in prayer (and not because of lack of desire), which does improve with maturity in the faith. When Bunyan writes about (3) ‘leaning’ to works of the law or justification by faith plus works, he is thinking of a typical false interpretation of Proverbs 20:6: “Most men will proclaim every one his own goodness: but a faithful man who can find?” This verse teaches that it is the surmising of many unbelievers and certain sectarian believers, that justification by works or justification by faith plus works has some merit in being justified before God. Yet, this notion is condemned in the Old Testament and the New Testament, because of God’s demands in the covenant of works of absolute perfection from beginning to the end of one’s life, apart from being transferred to the covenant of grace. John Bunyan wrongly took Proverbs 20:6 and applied it to true repentant believers. (7) He confused the duty of repentant believers to practise righteousness under the covenant of grace, and noting one’s progress in the pursuit of the holiness, with justification by faith plus works. Every repentant believer must experience progress in the pursuit of holiness, or a professing Christian can never gain biblical assurance of Salvation. Furthermore, contrary to the ramblings of Bunyan, (6) repentant believers do not murmur; and Job did not murmur. Job only questioned the Lord in His prayer and speech, wherein Job eventually received answers to his questions from the Lord God. This referencing of murmuring as a professing believer is a false interpretation of that generation which died in the wilderness, who provoked the Lord and were unregenerate (see Psa. 95:7-11; Heb. 4:1-2).
In the Old Testament, when the prophets in the Psalms as well as Daniel speak of identification with the scandalous sins of Israel, leading up to the curse and punishment of God in the captivity in Babylon, the identification is not with reference to repentant believers committing any of the abominations themselves; but it is with reference to being in the Church of Israel, having the oracles of God, and falling short in covenant responsibilities to significantly protest such church declension. In contrast, John Bunyan took the identification with the abominations as personally confessing one’s own sins to be scandalous, even daily, with little distinction in sins, so to perceive to be extra ‘humble’, with a complete misunderstanding of I Corinthians 6:9-11 and Galatians 5:19-21. Thereby, this false view of assurance will simply come and go based on feelings. When the neo-reformed system of theology of John Bunyan in Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinner is understood, surely reformed evangelicals will come to reconsider, that John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress is not genuinely reformed evangelical, but neo-reformed Baptist instead; and anyone considering scorning this writer for exposing John Bunyan’s heresies and the “beloved” Pilgrim’s Progress,**** take note; it had to be done sooner or later! This gospel minister makes no apology for defending biblical saving faith together with the reformed evangelical body of divinity.
In the 19th century, Bunyanism was revitalised and had some influence into the Free Church of Scotland, besides the Strict and Particular Baptists in England. Gospel ministers violating the legislative intent and natural interpretation of the Westminster Church Standards or the Baptist Confession of 1689, by advancing Bunyanism, would quite noticeably be weak contradictory preachers, needing remedial instruction or removal from the ministry. Bunyanism has had its adverse affect upon Presbyterian church courts in general synods, presbyteries, and sessions, wherein a minister or elder could simply justify their serious sins in the church by claiming to be sinners with abominations in one’s heart; and thereby the church officer could escape the duty to apologise, being perceived to be “exempt” having false humility (see WCF 15:6). This serious sinful behaviour would be acceptable to those church officers advocating Bunyan’s view of “humility” and false interpretation of Romans 7:14-25 and I Timothy 1:12-15. Whilst Paul is speaking of a repentant believer in Romans 7:14-25, the Apostle is clearly speaking of a multitude of remaining imperfections sins, some remaining serious sins, and especially sinful thoughts, but not speaking of scandalous sins; and he is certainly not contradicting himself for what he taught in Romans 6:1-22, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:1-6, II Timothy 2:19, and Hebrews 12:14. The Apostle Paul is most plain in Romans 7:25 concerning a repentant believer’s sanctified state of mind by saving grace: “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin”. In this context, the ‘flesh’ is remaining indwelling sin, after initial sanctification.
The Bunyanite activists often wrongly interpret Jeremiah 17:5-11, thinking that it is the natural state of many repented believers to be confused in the heart at various times, when it obviously refers to unregenerate, sectarian nominal Christians. One should never confuse the promptings of demons and remaining thoughts of vanity with one’s regenerated mind (see Psa. 119:113; Rom. 7:25); and instead, the young professing Christian should be focusing on the duty to be transforming one’s life in progressive sanctification in the truth (John 17:17; Rom. 12:1-2; Phil. 2:12-13). Taking such a false interpretation of Jeremiah 17:9, as Bunyanism lends itself to, destroys any sound and rational view of fruit bearing with assurance of grace and Salvation. According to Westminster Confession 18:1-2, God-fearing repentant believers have a regenerate, sound, and competent mind to gain biblical assurance of Salvation (Prov. 15:28; Rom. 7: 25; 8:5-16; Phil 2:12-13; II Pet. 1:3-10).
Finally, Bunyanite neo-reformed sectarians have dreamed up a view of maturity in the faith, which is completely unbiblical. Many Bunyanites say that mature Christians are to view themselves more sinful as they progress in maturity in their Christian life; this is a denial of biblical initially sanctification and progressive sanctification, and it will destroy any respect for biblical assurance of Salvation. This false humility, and a type of pride, is simply put heresy.
The Hoeksemite Neo-Reformed Sectarian Party
Whilst it might be surmised that the neo-reformed (4) Hoeksemite sectarian party is better than the Moderate Calvinist sect, the Hoeksemite gospel doctrines are still not in any way compatible with the covenant of works, exact covenant of grace, effectual calling, repentance unto life and the pursuit of holiness as taught in the Shorter Catechism, the Larger Catechism, and the Westminster Confession. Professor Hoeksema taught a different Canons of Dordt, a different gospel body of divinity. He was not a reformed evangelical professor of theology. The promoters of the Hoeksemite sect in the Protestant Reformed Churches of North America require a credible profession of faith with their reinterpreted and revised catechised distinctives, rather than a God-fearing catechised saving faith with the reformed evangelical justification by grace through faith alone and repentance unto life. Hoeksemites speak of the moral law for progressive sanctification, but stop short of teaching that the moral law is for repentance unto life and the pursuit of holiness; and instead imply it to be a form of Arminianism to emphasise moral duty as in the Westminster Church Standards. It is considered against their understanding of limited atonement and the covenant of grace (see index, Herman Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics). Herman Hoeksema considered himself one of the purist, when it comes to emphasising an unconditional covenant of grace (see index, Herman Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics). He had no use for Larger Catechism Question and Answer 32. For Hoeksemites, a conditional covenant, even with the condition fulfilled by the Holy Spirit in effectual calling, is considered a form of Modified Calvinism, or a form of Arminianism. So the dedicated Hoeksemites know that their form of revised “Calvinism” is not at all compatible with the Westminster Church Standards nor the 16th century Helvetica Reformed Church, including John Calvin’s writings.
The Protestant Reformed Churches of North America (PRCNA) claim to hold to the Three Forms of Unity; and they do perform some catechetical preaching and catechising through the Heidelberg Catechism. Nevertheless, they do not follow the precise effectual calling nor perseverance of the saints as in the Canons of Dordt. They are most concerned about allegiance to their peculiar doctrines, including anti-covenant of works, unconditional covenant of grace, weak view of the moral law, and referencing the reformed evangelical doctrine of the immortality of the soul to be heretical (comp. index, Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics with WCF 4:2; LCQA 17); and this false charge against the doctrine of the immortality of the soul was an encouragement to the sectarians who teach justification by faith plus works and advocate soul-sleep in the grave (e.g., Roman Catholic-Orthodox sect, Cambellite sect, Seven Day Baptist-Adventist sect, Russelite-JWs sect, etc.). Hoeksema also taught that referring to Christ as the God-man in the Larger Catechism (see LCQA 54) is pantheistic (see index, Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics); and this is another way of branding it a heresy. He also taught eternal justification and misrepresented the Westminster Confession (comp. see index, Herman Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics with WCF 11:4). The PRCNA unashamedly promote pessimistic Amillenialism. The PRCNA hold to a definite form of assumptive regeneration of children of professing believers, not taught in Scripture, regardless of the deceptive denial, having made up a “seed of regeneration” in infancy (see Prov. 3:1-9; 4:1-10; 19:26-27; 23:19, 22-26; 28:7; Lk. 12:49-53; 14:25-27; Jn 1:12-13). The result in practice is the same as those who advocate baptismal regeneration; but assumptive regeneration actually flows quite well in logical thinking from an unconditional covenant of grace (see Hanko, We and Are Children; Hoeksema Reformed Dogmatics). The typical PRCNA terminology is believing that their children are ‘ordinarily regenerated in very infancy’. In contrast, those holding to the Westminster Standard’s conditional covenant of grace do not have this problem. Biblical effectual calling and regeneration are the same in Scripture, except for regeneration upon death of the elect mentally retarded and elect infants dying in infancy (comp. in the WCF 10:1-4); and it is well known that the Hoeksemites categorically reject common operations of the spirit (see WCF 10:4; LCQA 68) creating a problem with their understanding of total depravity.
Some may ask though, could it be said that Hoeksema’s Reformed Dogmatics is better than Berkhof’s Systematic Theology? The answer should be that both theological books are sectarian and contrary to the reformed evangelical faith. Furthermore, it may be asked, then what systematic theology should be used for ministerial training? No reformed evangelical tutor or professor should need to use any systematic theology in ministerial training, wherein systematic theology text books tend to lead readers down a different theological path then the reformed evangelical church creeds and catechisms. First, every faithful tutor or professor of theology should be able to train students by teaching directly out of the Westminster Confession, Larger Catechism, as well as the Canons of Dordt, for three years for full-time students for the ministry, unless the goal is to reinterpret the Westminster Standards by another “systematic theology”; and second, ordinarily no reformed evangelical Presbyterian minister of the gospel should be teaching any students for the ministry as a tutor or professor of theology until he has catechetically preached through the heads of doctrine outlined in the Larger Catechism/Shorter Catechism for ten to fifteen years in the pulpit. That teacher also better have his reformed evangelical theology memorised, after a minimum of ten plus years of catechetical preaching; and he will not need an earned “doctorate” on a piece of paper to train students for the ministry.
Finally, the PRCNA take a sectarian view of no divorce or remarriage, rejecting the natural interpretation of Matthew 19:1-9 and I Corinthians 7:1-15. The natural interpretation of putting together Luke 16:18 with Matthew 19:1-9 is that the bond of marriage can be broken either by adultery after marriage or the failure to reveal fornication before the marriage; and the bond is also broken by unremedied desertion, which is the natural interpretation of desertion and no longer being under the ‘bond’ of marriage (I Cor. 7:15). If there is deliberately no cohabitation, then the bond has been broken by desertion; and by scriptural logic there can be a new marriage entered into by the innocent party without concern, being no longer bound to the previous marriage. The Westminster Confession view of divorce and remarriage is intensely biblical and the natural interpretation of related scriptural passages (see WCF 24:5-56 and LCQA 138 with proof-texts); but the PRCNA sectarian view of divorce, and promoted by some other sectarians, is intensely unbiblical, scripturally illogical and untenable, that is, impractical and unworkable.
This writer strongly disagrees with some online reviews of Reformed Dogmatics, that Herman Hoeksema was quite logical in his writing in a good way. Hoeksema’s reasoning was definitely not scripturally logical. The forced and unnatural interpretation of the PRCNA is that the innocent party cannot accept divorce nor remarry even if the guilty party has filed for divorce and/or definitely deserted; and the further forced logical conclusion would then be that the innocent party cannot remarry even if the guilty party has remarried. Moreover, the logical position of this sectarian view of no divorce and no remarriage, intimates that a remarriage-bed union on biblical grounds, or sinful grounds of divorce with biblical repentance, continues in adultery; and therefore, it logically implies that the new married partners should seek to go back, if they can, to the original marriage. Yet, this is contrary to Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and would cause a type of defilement in the conjugal re-union in the marriage bed. Since the PRCNA hold to a certain brand of “dispensational” redemptive historical preaching hermeneutic, their neo-reformed preachers simply ignore Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
With this sectarian view of divorce, there is the obvious practical problems with such a false teaching inherently intimating separation or even separation from the marriage-bed of those having a lawful divorce; or if they were converted after an unbiblical divorce and remarriage. Besides the concern of the children of the new marriage living under the same roof, then there is the matter of the consistent, but wrong counsel to sleep in different bedrooms, which is not at all in agreement with I Corinthians 7:1-5. There would also be the appearance of evil and/or significant confusion, once the neighbours find out, about their peculiar marriage; or no marriage, which is it? The Hoeksemite sectarian view of no divorce renders Matthew 5:16 and I Peter 2:12 completely untenable. Instead, the natural interpretation of Genesis 2:24, I Corinthians 7:1-5, and Hebrews 13:4 teaches that any and all marriages must maintain the marriage bed with frequent conjugal relations, once the marital union has begun. Biblically, some repentant-believers, having an unbiblical divorce and remarriage occurring before effectual calling, can only repent as far as the new married couple can. Then they should remain married and pursue holiness, including the existing God-fearing marriage bed; and they should certainly teach against unbiblical divorce. Besides other inquirers of the gospel of free grace, the proper counsel to those having a scriptural divorce or repentant unbiblical divorce is to avoid the PRCNA Hoeksemite sect and stay focused on having a biblical second marriage in a genuine reformed evangelical church.
Let us make it scripturally plain that this minister does not have to prove conclusively what every church officer in the PRCNA may or may not believe concerning the covenant of grace, covenant of works, the immortality of the soul, Christ as the God-man, effectual calling, repentance, perseverance of the saints, and marriage and divorce. Let the PRCNA synod pass a synodical decree declaring that Professor Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965) was a sectarian and end using the systematic theology in ministerial training (Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics), with the appropriate doctrinal corrections in favour of the proper interpretation of the Three Forms of Unity; and those denominations who have sent students for the ministry to train at the Protestant Reformed Theological College in recent years need to forthrightly make this condemnation as well. In 1991, this minister exposed the PRCNA reformed confessional departures (see George W. Bancroft “Doctrinal Deviations of the Protestant Reformed Churches”, 1990-91). Now exposing the PRCNA to be a sect, let all genuine reformed evangelicals mark out the Hoeksemite sect and other such sects: “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Rom. 16:17)
Perversion of the True Gospel and Damnable Heresies
Now having explained these four sectarian parties within the neo-reformed sect, it is certainly time now to make clear that II Peter 2:1-3 does refer to all sects, including the neo-reformed sect parties in the warning and admonition as a ‘damnable heresy’. After all, any perversion of the gospel body of divinity, including repentance unto life and/or justification by grace through faith alone is perverting the gospel; and failure to submit to the Scriptures to be the only rule of faith and practice is another “faith”, not saving faith. It is another gospel (II Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9), which subverts the souls of professing Christians (see Acts 15:24; II Tim. 2:14). Any perversion of the gospel by necessity must be concluded to be a damnable heresy (II Pet. 2:1). It does not matter how nice or with fare speeches a particular sectarian preacher may teach (Prov. 26:25-26; II Cor. 2:14-17; II Tim. 4:1-4).
Let us take note of the natural and grammatical interpretation of II Peter 2:1-3. There were unregenerate false prophets and false priest-ministers in the Old Testament church, claiming to believe in the God of the Scriptures. So there will be false teachers in the New Testament period, who are false ministers of the gospel and/or false elders, trying to infiltrate and teach the Christian realm ‘damnable heresies’. They often teach and will teach heresy secretly, privily, and undercover. The false teachers deny the true Lord God who bought them, that is, has propriety over them (i.e., owns them) from creation and conception in birth. As the God of the Scriptures created all sectarian teachers, they are held accountable to the Godhead, remaining under the covenant of works. Both second category and third category parable of the sower professing Christians deny the Lord God who ‘bought’ them by creation, opting for a different God, different Christ, and different gospel of their own imagination (see Mal. 3:16-18; Jn 2:23-25; 13:5; Gal. 1:6-9; II Pet. 1:10). This is plain in II Corinthians 11:4 with sectarians remaining in the regional area of Corinth as well as in Galatia, who were preaching and teaching another Jesus: “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him”.
The sectarian false teachers are also charged with using corrupt words to merchandise any and all who profess the Christian faith (Rom. 16:17-19; II Pet. 2:3). For when the false teachers oppose the biblical tithe and have manipulative offerings, or simply take the tithe away from faithful Protestant evangelical ministers of the gospel, it is merchandising of professing Christians. Biblical tithes and offerings are for the maintenance of the faithful gospel ministers and church ordinances (Mal. 2:7; 3:7-12; Matt. 5:17-20; I Cor. 11:7-14; 16:1-2). Let us definitely take heed that when offerings are given to a sectarian church or sectarian para-church ministry, the tithes and offerings are diverted away from the reformed evangelical ministry and given to a counterfeit ministry of a perverted gospel; and scorning reformed evangelical gospel ministers, financially struggling, aggravates the severe sin of slander (see Matt. 12:1-9; Lk. 6:1-5; II Pet. 2:1-3).
Regular attendance at neo-reformed sectarian assemblies is not only a bad witness, but bad for one’s spiritual health; and a steady diet of the poor hermeneutics, twisting Scripture, and a false gospel will have its impact in individuals, in marriage and in the family. Such regular attendance would severely contradict reformed evangelical family worship led by the father with catechetical instruction in the home; and frequent attendance at any of the neo-reformed churches identifies reformed evangelical advocates with the plague upon the neo-reformed sectarians and other sectarians: “And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (II Pet. 2:3). Furthermore, reformed evangelicals should refrain from partaking of Communion with the sectarian congregates filled with heretical doctrines (see KJB I Cor. 11:17-20, 28-30; Gal. 1:6-9; 5:19-21).
Biblical Repentance unto Life
In accordance with Scripture, the Westminster Church Standards teach that repentance unto life is turning from sin to purpose and endeavour to walk in all the ways of new obedience and specifically according to the moral law of God of the Old and New Testaments (WCF 15:1-2, 19:4-6; LCQA 76, 91-148); and in the Westminster Church Standards, the new obedience is indeed the commandments of God, which is the moral law of the Old and New Testaments, as taught in the Larger Catechism (LCQA 91-148). Furthermore, that new obedience’ is with specific reference to the covenant of grace and not the covenant of works. Thomas Vincent explains the legislative intent meaning of the Shorter Catechism repentance unto life, in agreement with the Larger Catechism (see The Shorter Catechism, Explained from Scripture on QA 87 What is repentance unto life?):“Repentance is called repentance unto life, because it is a saving grace, and a necessary mean for the attaining life and salvation”. Vincent goes on to thoroughly explain what it is to turn from sin: “What is that turning from sin which is a part of true repentance? The turning from sin which is a part of true repentance, doth consist in two things –1. In a turning from all gross sins, in regard of our course and conversation. 2. In a turning from all other sins, in regard of our hearts and affections.”
There cannot be two types of repentance: one for the neo-reformed and other sectarians who do not delight in the moral law of God and pursuit of holiness; and one for reformed evangelicals who do delight in the moral law of God and pursuit of holiness. Any perverted gospel message by necessity must be logically a damnable heresy; and those who follow such teaching to the end of their lives as a third category parable of the sower Christian adherent can never have biblical assurance of Salvation in this life (Matt. 13:22; Luke 8:14). The Westminster Confession explains a false assurance in this manner: “Although hypocrites and other unregenerate men may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptuous of being in the favour of God, and estate of salvation (which hope of theirs shall perish): yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love Him in sincerity, endeavouring to walk in all good conscience before Him, may, in this life, be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed” (WCF 18:1).
Ungodly Sectarian Ministers of the Gospel
It is clearly in line with Scripture to be concerned about neo-reformed sectarian ministers being yet unregenerate, ungodly, false brethren, following a false gospel, and promoting a Jesus of their imagination (II Cor. 11:3-4, 26). The 19th century two office Presbyterian church office view has confused the meaning of Psalm 132:9-16. The failure to regularly sing all the psalms in public worship has added to the problem. The Westminster Presbyterian Church Government teaches that the priest minister office continued in the New Testament with the office of the gospel minister (Westminster Presbyterian Form of Church Government, Pastors), but without the ceremonial law duties, which were abolished (Mal. 2:4-7; I Cor. 9:13-14 ; Eph. 2:11-17; 4:11-14; Col. 2:13-17; Heb. 7:12). Therefore, when Psalm 132:9-16 is sung, it should remind congregational singers that all adherents of the Christian faith should long for and support gospel ministers who can preach the reformed evangelical faith from the heart, being repentant believers themselves and pursuing holiness with the whole moral law. The Apostle Paul wrote to Timothy, a minister of the gospel Evangelist, in the following manner: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Tim. 4:16). Why are so many reformed evangelical advocates been disappointed in the behaviour of certain ungodly neo-reformed preachers, for teaching heresy and committing presumptuous severe and scandalous sins? The answer is that some students for the ministry will slip by having been unconverted in declining churches; and that sectarian churches will produce a multitude of nominal Christian false teachers (see II Pet. 2:1).
To answer a potential concern among some gospel ministers, elders, and as well as potential attendees to establish preaching stations and then mission congregations in their regional area, reformed evangelical parents have been “burned before” by neo-reformed sectarian pastors, ruling elders, and other associates in congregations and mission congregations. Many neo-reformed activists can noticeably tale bear, slander, act in malice and deceit, lie, severely sinning without natural affection, act highminded and implacable with evil speaking. Far too many neo-reformed activist sectarians grieve the Holy Spirit with little or no remorse (Prov. 26:20-28; Rom. 1:31; 16:17-18; Eph. 4:30-31, II Tim. 3:1-5; Jm. 4:10-12), because they do not have the marks of saving grace. The neo-reformed sectarians often add worldly cultural norms to make up for their very reduced morality in their lives (see Rom. 12:1-2; Col. 2:8). These sectarians naturally clash with reformed evangelical Christians in the church, even within divided marriages and the family: “They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them” (Prov. 28:4); and as was stated in the introduction, many of these neo-reformed professing Christians have voted to dismantle distinctive moral laws and other teachings of Protestant reformers in the last 150 years. Indeed, they are in need of divine intervention, that is, the new birth/effectual calling, to get these neo-reformed sectarians to perform with full purpose moral good works, vote in accordance with the Protestant evangelical faith, and stop acting as evil doers (Deut. 4:1-8; Mal. 3:7-12; Matt. 5:16-20; I Pet. 3:15). In Scripture, let us make this point again most clear, there are three types of ungodly or wicked people: the reprobate ungodly (Rom. 1:26-32), the ungodly wicked displaying some restraint and remaining traces of the moral law on the heart (Rom. 2:14-15), and the ungodly wicked with common operations of the Spirit (Heb. 6:1-6).
* All diseases for mankind under the covenant of works are caused by the fall of man into sin, the curse and wrath of God, (see Deuteronomy 28:15, 28, 58-61; Acts 5:1-11; Eph. 1:11; Rev. 2:20-23) and part of God’s foreordaining plan (see LCQA 27-28). No matter what the evolutionary medical physicians try this will not change. By experimentation with toxic treatments and unnecessary operations, some evolutionary doctors make non-diseases, temporary illnesses, or demonic mental disorders into diseases defending so-called early detection (for example, pre-cancer, pre-heart disease, speculative early signs or pre-Dementia, stress, anxiety, depression, bi-polar, manic-depression etc.). No matter what the emotional charge with diagnosis, needing quality second opinions, and in the event of contracting serious diseases, the Scriptures and gospel doctrines may not be compromised. With reference to patients at the hospital, the biblical answer presented by reformed evangelical church officers (Prov. 15:28; I Pet. 3:15) must be in accordance with the covenant of works and the covenant of grace: for example, tragic accidents, tragic strokes, or contracting serious diseases. If the patient and/or the relatives are teachable, it is time to implement 1 Peter 3:15, and the minister implement II Timothy 4:1-2, as soon as possible. The following gospel doctrines must stand firm and not be compromised for interpretation of definite tragic accidents, contracting or having serious diseases, including, Alzheimer’s-madness, accidents and strokes harming the brain, etc.: predestination and the Sovereignty of God, effectual calling-new birth, biblical fruit bearing, progressive sanctification, perseverance of the saints as well as God’s Sovereignty to harden sinners (see Prov. 28:18; 29:1). Let us remember that it is scripturally illogical and against effectual calling-initial sanctification, as well as perseverance of the saints, to view King Solomon as some kind of long term ‘backslider’. Likewise, it follows that Alzheimer’s-madness cannot be a disease for genuine God-fearing repentant-believers, for it is also contrary to effectual calling-initial sanctification, progressive sanctification, fruit bearing, as well as perseverance of the saints in the faith (see Psa. 1:1-6; 92:12-15; Phil. 1:6; I Pet. 1:5; II Pet. 1:3-10); but it can indeed be a disease for all unregenerates including unteachable and hardened neo-reformed sectarian activists and other 3rd category parable of the sower individuals (Prov. 28:18; 29:1; Matt. 13:22; Lk. 8:14); and their serious sins can be certainly aggravated by scorning reformed evangelical ministers for teaching and defending the Protestant evangelical faith (see Gal. 1:6-9; Heb. 13:17; I Tim. 5:17). Of course, some diseases even strokes just before death or at death are definitely ways of God taking his elect home to glory. Short term illnesses and even long term illnesses can indeed be trials for God-fearing repentant believers; but this cannot include tragic diseases displaying ‘madness’, or even severe strokes and/or tragic accidents injuring the mind and then displaying madness. The point is professing Christians either submit to the Scriptures to be the only rule of faith and obedience and believe the reformed evangelical gospel body of divinity, or they do not.
** see Thomas Vincent, The Shorter Catechism, Explained from Scripture (Banner of Truth Trust: Edinburgh, 2010).
*** An alternative reformed evangelical interpretation of the life of Solomon is that he was effectually called early in his reign, but he eventually stopped enforcing the first table of the moral law on behalf of his military alliance wives: which would have had some adverse affect on his mind and service to the Lord God. This will always be the effect on any governors of nations with the resultant moral decline of a nation, in failure to enforce the first table of the moral law. No interpretation of the life of Solomon, however, may be made which alters or denies the true doctrine of effectual calling and initial sanctification.
**** Readers who understand and confess the reformed evangelical doctrines of assurance of grace and Salvation, effectual calling, and true saving faith, with repentance unto life, should note the flaws during another reading or already had noted the doctrinal errors in Pilgrim’s Progress.
—Introduction – Part 1 – Conclusion