—Introduction – Part 1 – Part 2
Conclusion: The Call to Works of Reformation, Mission Congregations, and Reformed Evangelical Presbyterian Church Unity
In the 21st century, genuine reformed evangelical Christians are certainly living in trying times. One might even argue that another take over has occurred of former Protestant evangelical churches almost identical to the take over of the Roman Empire Church by the Roman Catholic-Greek Orthodox sect. It is almost identical indeed. The recent take over has been by neo-reformed sectarians with a different saving faith and much reduced morality, and a different gospel body of divinity. There are four other differences though. First, the early New Testament church infiltration of ungodly heretical teachers was prophesied (Acts 20:30-32; II Thess. 2:1-8). Second, as far as we know, it was before the Roman Empire Church set forth an written catechism with the minimum gospel body of divinity; but the God-fearing repentant believing church officers knew the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith and could defend it (see I Cor 11:18-19; Gal 1:6-9; 5:19-21; Tit 3:10-1). Third, the early Protestant evangelicals were forced to flee and immigrate to other areas of Europe for freedom to proclaim the true gospel of free grace (Acts 20:29-32). Fourth, then it was prophesied that the Protestant reformers (II Thess. 2:8; Rev. ch. 17 and 18) would bring on the reformation, and the Protestant reformers were destined to link up with existing reformed evangelicals in the Alps, the Pyrenees, and the highlands of Scotland. The 16th and 17th centuries Protestant evangelicals gave us the reformed evangelical creeds, confessions, and catechisms to have a check against any attempted take over and to more easily perform works of reformation after infiltration and take over again. So today, the ‘wheel does not need to be invented over again’, so to speak. Even so, reformed evangelicals have some serious works of reformation to perform without further delay, given the limited true reformed evangelical congregations around the world, significant moral declension and anti-Christian movements in formerly Protestant evangelical countries.
Lay Evangelism and the Spread of the Simple Faith False Gospel
For the cause of reformation, let the reader be clear in understanding something. Whilst there is the duty of all professing Christians to give a reason for the hope which is within them before inquiring unbelievers (see Prov. 15:28; I Pet. 3:15), what we do not need more of, however, is “lay evangelism” on the streets of a city or before one’s neighbours. “Lay evangelism”, a 19th and 20th centuries practice of many sectarian neo-reformed congregations (i.e., Arminian Pelagians, Moderate Calvinist, also Russelites-JW sect), has spread false gospel doctrines like ‘wild fire’ (II Tim. 3:1-9). Not only have the neo-reformed sectarian teachers spread another gospel in their pulpits, but they have trained neo-reformed activists to spread the simple faith false gospel or justification by faith plus works, by special training in “lay evangelism”. This “lay evangelism” was based on a false interpretation of Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 1:8, 8:1-5, Ephesians 4:11-12, and II Timothy 2:2 (see WCF 25:3; LCQA 158). Instead, these verses are directed at ministers of the gospel, the call to preach the gospel, and as well as train other ministers of the gospel. Also Ephesians 4:11-14 does not teach that pastors are to ‘equip the people’ (see NIV and ESV) to do “lay evangelism”; and it definitely does not promote overly simplified ‘tracks’ spreading the simple faith false gospel, along with instant assurance. Indeed gospel ministers are to ‘perfect the saints’ and do ‘the work of the ministry’, wherein “the heart of the righteous studieth to answer” inquirers (see Prov. 15:28), performing moral good works in the presence of unbelievers (Matt. 5:16-20; I Pet. 2:12; 3:15). Reformed evangelicals learn what it means to answer questions to inquirers in meekness and fear, by a reformed catechism to assist in “evangelism” (e.g., Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism). Being in submission to Scripture, they display the biblical fear of God daily in their lives (see Prov. 23:17; Phil. 2:12-13; I Pet. 1:17-25). Then they should invite their neighbours and other inquirers to hear faithful reformed evangelical preaching.
With “lay evangelism”, the answers of neo-reformed activists to questions from inquirers have often been filled with false doctrines. Furthermore, the lifestyles of sectarian Christians have brought shame upon themselves and God-fearing Christians. The neo-reformed activists promote such a reduced morality, that scriptural verses, for example, Matthew 5:16, II Timothy 2:19, 1 Peter 2:12 and 3:15, have made no sense to these advocates of “lay evangelism”. Without regenerating grace including submission to the reformed evangelical faith, the efforts of neo-reformed activists to spread the Christian faith do more harm than good. Temporarily, “lay evangelism” may result in expansion of some neo-reformed congregations (see II Tim. 3:1-9; 4:3-4), especially with a flattery sectarian false preacher in the pulpit; however, the end result is stated in Scripture and has been displayed by documented experience after more than 140 years of neo-reformed sectarian preaching and “lay evangelism”. The result is exactly as the Apostle Paul wrote: “And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of” (II Pet. 2:2). The reformed evangelicals must separate unto genuine Prostestant evangelical congregations and be clear in protest and separation from ungodly behaviour and even hypocrisy.
An important question to consider is, how will the call to works of reformation work itself out? In answer to the question, this is how the call to works of reformation worked itself out in the 16th century Helvetica (Switzerland), Holland, Ireland, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland. First priest-ministers, soon understood to be gospel ministers, began banding together mission congregations, or took established congregations directly out of the Roman Catholic church union by secession. As soon as possible, Protestant evangelical denominations were reconstituted. In the case of Scotland, by 1560 the Church of Scotland had been taken back from the Roman Catholic church and reformed, so there was no need to form a new reconstituted reformed Church of Scotland. With reference to England, the Church of England did not secede over the first mark of the church. So it took time for works of reformation to reform the Church of England unto the 39 Articles of the Christian Religion, then the Westminster Church Standards. In the case wherein a denomination is formed after secession by gospel ministers and, Lord willing, some ruling elders into a Presbytery/Classis and then later a higher church court General Synod, the gospel ministers set up preaching station-mission congregations and established congregations by means of the Presbytery/Classis or a congregational session. The exception to this is in the foreign mission, wherein initially on the foreign mission preaching stations-mission congregations are set up by missionary gospel ministers without a Presbytery/Classis.
The Endorsement of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations
Of course, a second important question is, is there one denomination or more than one denomination to lead the way in the call to reformation? The WEPC deems that the Netherlands Reformed Congregations (NRC), including its sister denomination in Holland, is the denomination to lead the way with specific reference to the heritage of full Subscription to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dordt; and the NRC have added the Westminster Confession of Faith for further defence and clarity in such doctrines as six day creationism, the covenant of grace, the covenant of works, assurance of grace and Salvation, and common operations of the Spirit. In the second service on the Lord’s Day, the gospel ministers catechetically preach often through the outline of the Heidelberg Catechism. The Presbytery of WEPC has determined that the NRC in Holland, North America, and New Zealand lead the way in works of reformation to deal with denominations such as the Canadian Reformed Churches, the Free Reformed Churches of North America, the Protestant Reformed Churches of North America, the Reformed Churches in New Zealand, the Free Reformed Churches of Australia, the Reformed Churches in the United States, the United Reformed Churches of North America as well as the related sister churches in Holland.
The Presbytery of the WEPC commends to our people Lord’s Day public worship attendance during holiday time at NRCs, their sister denomination in Holland, live streaming worship, as well as holiday attendance at the Reformed Congregation of New Zealand, Carterton; but we are not recommending the Reformed Churches of New Zealand for church attendance. Readers should take note that average attendance in a NRC church ranges between 40 to 125, with even higher church attendance numbers in some congregations. The NRC follows the Westminster Confession position of exclusive psalmody (see WCF 21:5). Contrary to popular neo-reformed slander or misunderstanting, the NRC denomination does not promote the error of ‘preparationism’. (This error of ‘preparationism’ and label can fit with those who advance the sect of Bunyanism). In accordance with I Corinthians 11:18-19, the NRC does practice close catechised Communion; ordinarily only communicant members of the NRC or its sister denomination in Holland partake at Communion and requiring a period of observation and sustaining a proper examination in the minimum gospel standards taught in the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dordt for anyone to partake at the Lord’s Supper. This period of time and delay of communicant membership for adult adherents is not referring to a long conversion process, but a period of time for personal and congregational observation.
Nevertheless the Presbytery of the WEPC should mention that we do have a few non-evangelical differences with the Netherlands Reformed Congregations (NRC), wherein one difference is taught in the Westminster Church Standards. Acting as if we have no differences will not serve the Presbyterian reformed evangelical realm very well and fails to display mutual respect between the WEPC and the NRC, and even mutual coordination. The WEPC holds to the legislative intent position of the Westminster Church Standards, especially made clear in the Larger Catechism with reference to a two tier membership: (1) Baptised adherent members and (2) catechised Communicant members. This is in contrast to NRC membership and adult Baptism withheld until Communicant status is approved. We recognise the position of the NRC to be in accordance with Synod of Dordt Church Order (Art. 59); and we respectfully request the NRC General Synod to consider the two tier membership taught in the Westminster Church Standards, as the NRC has added the Westminster Confession to their confessional documents (see chapter 28:4; 29:7-8). The Westminster Confession by legislative intent is to be further compared to and interpreted by Larger Catechism Question and Answer 171, 173, and 177 (comp. SCQA 95, 97). We encourage the General Synod of the NRC to consider the original position of the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian Church of England in the 17th century in its difference with the Synod of Dordt 1618-19 (Art. 59). We deem that the Westminster Church Standard position of two tier membership (i.e., Baptised membership and Communicant membership) is a better implementation of Scripture passages comparing Baptism in distinction from the Lord’s Supper (Acts 2:37-41; 8:5-24, 26-39; 16:14-15, 30-34 comp. with I Cor. 11:18-19); and this is still the official synodical position of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland till this day, namely, two tier membership.
The other two non-evangelical differences are with reference to Scripture prescribed worship. Some Westminster confessing Presbyterians hold to unaccompanied exclusive psalm singing in public worship (see Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, Of Singing of Psalms): “the voice is to be tunably and gravely ordered”; yet it does appear that some 17th century, Church of England congregations did have pipe organs in the cities. We understand that, following the Helvetica Reformed Church, the Church of Holland began the Protestant reformation without musical accompaniment and did not begin to add organs into public worship until about 1660. Whilst we should indeed take the position that it is acceptable to worship in NRC and Presbyterian congregations, with an organ, piano, and some soft sounding instruments for accompaniment, some reformed evangelical Presbyterians would argue that the practice of unaccompanied psalm singing to be in greater conformity with Scripture prescribed worship as well as practically for the following reasons: it is argued that musical accompaniment with singing was reserved for the Levites and added during the time of David and Asaph to the tabernable-temple and not part of synagogue-congregational worship (I Chron. 16:1-43; 25:1-7; II Chron. 29:20-30); it is more conducive to promoting family worship psalm singing in the home (see 1650 Metrical Psalter). It can be better congregational singing with wise use of presenters and adding parts; and it is better for the mission field to not concern themselves with an organ or piano accompaniment and a skilled instrument player. Moreover, with reference to church services in addition to the Lord’s Day two worship services, the NRC follow the Synod of Dordt Church Order (1618-19) Article 67: “The Churches shall observe, in addition to Sunday, also Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost, with the following day ….” The label ‘Advent’, a Latin term which means ‘coming’, is commonly used in the NRC, rather than “Christmas.” In contrast, the WEPC follow the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, An Appendix: “There is no day commanded in scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day, which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-days, having no warrant in the word of God, are not to be continued.” This has particularly to do with worship services and not family home practices concerning gift exchanging. Some reformed evangelical Presbyterian families exchange gifts in late November, others the 24th-26th of December, or 1st January; but the exact day is not important to them.
For those who might know the reformed church history coordination between the Church of Holland and the ‘reformed’ Church of Scotland from 1662-1688, students for the ministry were sent to the Church of Holland for examination and assistance in licensure to the gospel ministry, until the end of the reign of King Charles II in Scotland; but during a coordinated effort, non-evangelical differences were noted including the introduction of the ‘organ’ in the Church of Holland and not used in the Church of Scotland.
The final difference with the NRC is with reference to church government procedure and church contact, by denominational websites and clerks of Presbytery/General Synod for correspondence. The NRC has no active clerk of the Classis or active clerk of the General Synod. There is difficulty when ministers, independent congregations, and foreign missions have no active NRC clerks to address correspondence to higher church courts. Yet, we should always remember in the reformed evangelical Presbyterian system that clerks have no authority or power to act and write contrary to church court instruction; but they must pass on correspondence to be an item of business at the next Presbytery/General Synod meeting. Also in the Presbyterian system, preaching station-mission congregations are ordinarily started by a Presbytery. In the NRC, preaching station-mission congregations in the home nation are ordinarily started by an existing nearby Consistory; and there is no direct procedure for a semi-retired gospel minister to transfer into an NRC Classis. Instead, he must make contact through a local consistory and then be commended to the Classis/General Synod; however, if a congregation and the pastor were seeking organic union, there would be provision to address the Classis.
Westminster Presbyterian Baptism and Communicant Membership
Many reformed evangelical Presbyterians have unknowingly adopted or been practising the view of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the Synod of Dordt Church Order 1618-19 (Art 59), regarding young adult and adult Baptism. Baptism as specifically set forth in the Westminster Church Standards, and specifically in the Larger Catechism, is worthy of consideration in light of Scripture. In the Westminster Church Standards young adult and adult baptism is what had come to be called “Adherent Baptism” in the Free Church Scotland by the mid-19th century. In distinction, Communicant membership was to be on the basis of “Accredited Professing of Faith and Obedience.” In historic 16th-17th centuries, Westminster confessing Presbyterians compiled all the Scriptures on Baptism in comparison with the Lord’s Supper requirement in I Corinthians 11:17-34 and adopted a distinction in the two Sacraments and a two tier membership (“Adherent Church Membership” and “Accredited Professing Member”). Baptized children would be soon recorded to be adherent church members and still waiting to be communicant memberships until sometime after thorough catechising and personal confession. Unkown new young adult or adult adherent church membership could be Baptized adherent members for up to a year or so as needed, being subject to catechetical instruction and display of fruit bearing in doctrine and life.
Nevertheless, after a period of Baptised congregational membership, Baptised adherent members not wanting to continue on to be examined for Communicant membership, may continue as Baptised members; or if desired, they may have their names deleted from the Baptised roll without letter of standing. Once being granted Communicant congregational membership, if in the future Communicant members change their minds and no longer want to be committed to a reformed evangelical congregation, they may have their names deleted from the Communicant membership roll by request; but this would be without departing letter of standing. It is to be noted and explained by a session, however, that there are consequences to simply break covenant vows in communicant membership and depart from the reformed evangelical faith before Almighty God; it is classified (1) as a season of scandalous sin, or (2) it could it be ‘backsliding’, which is apostasy (1st, 2nd, and 3rd commandments are severely broken; see LCQA 105 “heresy”; 108 “church government and discipline; the ministry and maintenance thereof”; 109 “sacrilege”; 113 “violating of our oaths and vows”; “backsliding”, Gal. 1:6-9; 2:15-3:7; Heb. 6:4-6; I Jn 2:19). Communicant membership may certainly be transferred by session letter, because all congregations in the denomination will be required to practice Presbyterian close catechetical Communion or equivalent session controlled Communion; or a letter of standing (i.e., disjunction certificate) may be given in the event of choosing to move on to another faithful reformed evangelical congregation outside the denomination. In the event of accusation of scandalous sin, moral law code procedure must be followed; and if convicted of scandalous sins by moral law code justice or by confession, there would be suspension from the Communicant roll back to the Baptised roll: hence becoming an ex-communicant. It is important to note that ‘blackening’ names with severe public announcements and spreading it abroad is banishment sectarian type excommunication (III Jn 9-10); and this is a practice which developed among some neo-reformed ‘strict’ session controlled congregations and borrowed from the medieval Roman Catholic/Greek Orthodox sect.
In the 17th century, full Subscription to the Westminster Church Standards was reserved for church officers; and full Subscription to the Shorter Catechism was required for Communicant membership in the Church of Scotland (see General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Adoption Act of the Shorter Catechism, 1648): “as part of the intended uniformity, to be a Directory for catechising such as are of weaker capacity”. The Presbytery of the WEPC wants to avoid weakening the understanding of the vows of church officers to the full Westminster Church Standards by making them one and the same with those of ‘weaker capacity’. Yet, besides catechetical preaching, we recommend that congregations in time have conference type lectures on the Larger Catechism and the Westminster Confession with a view to training future deacons and elders; and all males twenty years and upward can be invited to come to Larger Catechism catechising sessions, besides young peoples’ catechetical instruction. Yet we find no place nor warrant in Scripture (Eph. 4:11-16 KJB), and pre-18th century church history, for having a “Sunday school”. Yet, sessions may choose to have what is better termed ‘catechetical instructions’ at the church; other reformed evangelical congregations may pick a different day, such as Friday or Saturday.
Advancing Reformed Evangelical Congregations
At this point, it is important to dispel a myth and solve a definite problem in the Presbyterian reformed evangelical realm concerning God’s blessing and congregational attendance, since so many of the reformed evangelical Presbyterian congregations around the world are small and often between 10 and 70 in attendance. We also want to be prepared to answer potential questions from acquaintances even stirred up by neo-reformed sectarian activists related to a ‘false fruit’ of fruit bearing (i.e., large numbers in church chairs); is your reformed evangelical congregation a cult? The problem with struggling Presbyterian reformed evangelical congregations is not because of emphasising perceived unnecessary requirements: for example, exclusive or predominance of Psalmody in public worship, distinction in attire and distinction in hair length between men and women, head coverings for women (see John Calvin and John Gill on I Cor. 11:1-16); and the concern may be that if close catechised Communion (strenghtening session controlled communion) is added, then the WEPC is doomed to have very small congregations. Moreover, before we answer this question; would it be easier to answer the question, is your church a cult, or why are you associated with ungodly behaviour and hypocrisy (see ‘false brethren‘, Gal. 2:4-5; II Cor. 11:26; III John 9-11) continuing to be associated with a neo-reformed sectarian denomination?
The answer to the concern of separation or size (or is your church a cult?) is not with reference to denominational distinctives or reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith, not specifically included in the Shorter Catechism. In fact, these are not really distinctives, but Scripture creation ordinances and church ordinances (e.g., exclusive Psalmody or predominance of Psalmody, and distinction in attire and distinction in hair length between men and women, head coverings for women); and anyone who condemns singing of the psalms in public worship, scoffs at ordinary distinction in attire and hair length between men and women is simply unteachable, implacable, and part of the problem in moral declension. Finally, a woman who refuses to wear a head covering in public worship is displaying a contentious (Prov. 27:15) neo-reformed attitude and her lack of submission to her God-given role, having been created second behind the man (Gen. 2:18-23; I Cor. 11:1-16; I Tim. 2:12-15). It is certainly not going to hurt any woman to have long hair and put on a head covering upon entering public worship, as men take their hats off. It is also one of the gauges of a repentant-believer, with communicant members in submission to the Scriptures, since there was no ‘custom’ or consideration to debate over these creation ordinances in the early New Testament Roman Empire Church: “But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God (I Cor. 11:16).”
Now to more fully answer the question, is ‘your’ mission congregation/preaching station a cult because of separation or size? The Netherlands Reformed Congregations hold to the mentioned church and creation ordinances (e.g., exclusive Psalmody, distinction in attire and distinction in hair length between men and women, head coverings for women); and furthermore, the NRC tends to have medium size congregations in Canada, Holland, New Zealand, and the United States (with 40 to 125 average attendance) and ordinarily providing well for their pastors in even rural regions. There are also reformed evangelical Baptist congregations practising closed Communion with medium size congregations (40 to 100 average attendance). So why is it that many Presbyterian and temporarily independent reformed evangelical congregations are not being blessed, when the NRC denomination is being blessed in accordance with Acts 16:4-5? The answer is that the NRC emphasises four principles that genuine reformed evangelical churches need to emphasise and adopt as soon as possible: (1) Commence catechetical preaching and soon implement close catechised Communion or equivalent session controlled communion, which sends a clear message to professing reformed Christians in neo-reformed congregations; for the good of one’s soul, marriage and the family, exit neo-reformed congregations and attend a genuine reformed evangelical congregation, submit to reformed evangelical catechetical preaching and submit to close catechised Communion (‘burning the bridges behind’, so to speak); and this will make it plain to the inquirer that the consistent reformed evangelical congregation is not a cult or hypocritical sect, but indeed separating from ungodly behavior and even hypocrisy; (2) doing one’s best to marry within the true reformed evangelical faith, having children as the Lord makes the womb fruitful; and either home school or send children to a definite reformed evangelical church school; but do not send children to a neo-reformed “Christian” school or other sectarian school; (3) when moving across country or immigrating to another country, be serious about moving so to transfer to another genuine reformed evangelical congregation, or request a preaching station/mission; (4) promote the value of building trades (e.g., carpentry, plumbing, handy maintenance, etc.), farming or gardening, and ranching. (Why? some readers know why?) So to be self-reliant and, if need be after prayer, to more easily move house and reset up on land in rural regions (see Prov. 24:27; 27:23-27; 31:10-31).
WEPC Presbytery Correspondence and Reformation Public Meetings
So the Presbytery of the WEPC calls on reformed evangelical individuals and families to enter into correspondence with the Presbytery clerk. With developing contacts, we are prepared to have meeting gatherings throughout Australia and New Zealand and are also preparing for meeting gatherings in Singapore, Hong Kong, India, England, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. The Presbytery will also enter into correspondence, as well as have public meetings, with serious and likeminded reformed evangelicals in North America, South America, and Africa. We also recognise the need of organising dominion and overseas preaching stations and missions congregations under the Presbytery of the WEPC, with a view to sister denominations in the future; and we will make contact with other small reformed evangelical presbyteries with a view to negotiated merger. The public meetings are for serious and genuine reformed evangelical inquirers and not for neo-reformed activists who would oppose biblical reformation meetings. Coordination with the NRC Consistory of the Reformed Congregation of New Zealand, Carterton (https://www.rcnz.org/) will be made with any contacts developed in New Zealand, and especially in reasonable driving distance to Carterton. Yet the Presbytery of the WEPC will respect reformed evangelicals who intend to subscribe to the Shorter Catechism and sing the 1650 Psalter unaccompanied in association with the WEPC; and vice versa, we will coordinate with the Reformed Congregation of New Zealand, Carterton in contacts in Australia who prefer their denomination. The same coordination can be worked out with the NRC in Canada and Northern United States.
The Biblical Tithe and Maintenance of the Gospel Ministry
In accordance with Malachi 3:7-12, Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:41-42 and I Corinthians 9:9-16, the WEPC holds to the biblical tithe and offerings under the 2nd Commandment, as in Larger Catechism 108 (see ‘the ministry and maintenance thereof’) and 109 (see ‘sacrilege’). Professing Christians who have little or no concern for the maintenance of faithful reformed evangelical congregations with the gospel ministers will not be blessed of the Lord with physical or spiritual blessings in the long run; and instead they are prone to continued punishment of the Lord (Mal. 3:7-12; Matt. 12:1-9; 13:22; I Pet. 4:17-19; III John 1-4). Tithes and offerings is one of the gauges or marks in Scripture, among others, of authentical Christians who are God-fearing repentant believers. Yet, the WEPC believes the following, concerning individual and family financial affairs with tithes and offerings: (1) tithing is enforced by the Sovereign Lord God in the heavens with sanctification in the truth (Mal. 3:7-12; Matt. 23:23; I Cor. 9:7-16); (2) there is to be periodic public intimation in the preaching of the Word by scriptural exegesis; (3) there is the necessity to get private household expenditures in order, as soon as possible and perhaps beginning with 5% if in severe debt; (4) requiring communicant membership good faith pledge without specifics; and (5) except for cases of requested pastoral or session counsel, preparation for and tithing itself is handled privately in the home.
WEPC Presbytery Correspondence and Church Union
The Presbytery of the WEPC is committed to correspondence with independent Presbyterian congregations with a view to adding them as well as merging with small denominations in due course to the WEPC or negotiated union. We invite negotiations and will have correspondence with any seceding reformed evangelical congregations from neo-reformed controlled denominations, who are or will be temporarily independent. With reference to existing independent Presbyterian congregations, we do not accept any anti-reformed evangelical view that such independent congregations cannot hold Communion without a Presbytery. This is a dangerous position to hold, namely, that pastors must always be part of an official presbytery or classis to administer the Lord’s Supper in a congregation. This view of administering the Lord’s Supper, which seems to have been imagined and dreamed up by some neo-reformed sectarian ministers, with their own definition of ‘schism’, is borrowed from high church Anglicanism; and in the 19th century, the Netherlands Reformed Congregations may never have had the necessary protest and reconstituting to be a continuing reformed evangelical denomination, if the seceding gospel ministers had held this very peculiar view. Biblically, we recognisee any genuine Protestant evangelical congregation with at least a minister to administer the Lord’s Supper, including reformed evangelical Congregationalists, reformed evangelical Baptists, and reformed evangelical independent Presbyterians. We do recommend, though, that pastors of reformed evangelical independent Presbyterian congregations begin catechetical preaching through the heads of doctrine in the Larger Catechism/Shorter Catechism by text/passage of Scripture, as referenced in the Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government (Pastors and Of the Ordinances in a particular Congregation) and the Directory for the Public Worship of God (Of the Preaching of the Word).
The Reformed Presbyterian Covenanters
The WEPC officially invites the Reformed Presbyterian Covenanters (RPCov) in North America, with some adherents in Australia, to have corresponding discussions. The RPCov have independent congregations and society-preaching stations in North America. We understand that they are committed to close catechetical Communion, with a two tier Presbyterian membership: Adherent baptised members and Communicant members. We invite individual society-preaching stations, mission congregations and any independent established congregations with pastors and/or elders to enter into correspondence to have respectful reformed evangelical discussions in light of full Subscription to the Westminster Church Standards for church officers. Nevertheless, the Presbytery of the WEPC would like to mention a few matters that have been issues among the RPCov. The WEPC does hold to covenanting, but without confusion with national treaty militia-military covenants in distinction from church covenanting (see Josh. 9:1-27); and no covenant or testimony may be entered into or continued for the purpose of allowing for reinterpretations, scruples or exceptions to the Westminster Church Standards, as had been done in the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America (RPCNA) in the mid-20th century; and potential debate over the church constitution, with a view to changes in the church constitution, must come by synodical church procedure. In Australia, being forced to vote, women could vote in accordance with their husband or enter a blank ballot, as some men and women choose to do; and on any up coming political election and continuing elections, we support specific political dissent based on individual conscience, with much prayer, consultation, and little or no moral restraint choice in “immoral” candidates. The WEPC also recognise political dissent presently in any considered jury duty, because of thorough take over of Napoleonic code justice over against moral law code justice in formerly Protestant evangelical countries. With reference to all encompassing political dissent, we deem that such a position adds to the Westminster Confession or reinterprets the same, without synodical official amendment procedure (see WCF 23:4); and such all encompassing political dissent can easily become a fourth or fifth mark of the church, wherein we do not concur being definitely out of cord with Scripture (I Tim 2:1-2, KJB, Geneva B, NKJV).
The Australian Free Church and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
What is our disposition toward Presbyterian denominations who have claimed full Subscription to the whole doctrine of the Westminster Confession, synodically committed to WCF 1:8 with endorsement of the KJB in pulpit preaching, yet practice a weak session controlled Communion, rather than close catechised Communion? The Presbytery of the WEPC invites the Synod and Presbytery respectively to enter into correspondence over works of reformation in the following denominations: the Australian Free Church (AFC) and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (FPCS). Having had some contact over many years with these denominations, we can address them concerning our differences. We encourage the AFC Presbytery and the FPCS General Synod particularly with reference to return to the original 1647-48 Church of Scotland Adoption Acts of the Westminster Church Standards as a whole. It should be understood that the Free Church of Scotland (FCS) Adoption Act in 1843 ushered in the beginning of reformed evangelical decline by leaving out church officer vows to the Larger and Shorter Catechisms; and in 1843, the FCS did not even require total subscription to the Westminster Confession (see Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith, departing on the covenant of grace and the precise six day creationism). We further ask them to clarify their position with reference to Bunyanism, as well as the use of Berkhof’s, Systematic Theology in theological training for students for the ministry.
With reference to the FPCS, the WEPC has made our position most clear to the FPCS Presbytery of Australia and New Zealand as well as the FPCS General Synod of our commitment to full Subscription to the Westminster Church Standards for church officers. This gospel minister has patiently waited and intimated for the FPCS to take the leadership in the call to reformation and to make their unifying synodical overtures since 1991. We take note of their known worthy commitment to keep the Christian Sabbath, and that the General Synod rightly does not allow for protests without departure; but we note in the history of the FPCS that the General Synod did debate the difference between close catechised Communion and ‘session controlled Communion’, synodically deciding to continue with the Free Church of Scotland ‘session controlled Communion’: which we deem indequate together with the severe problem with Bunyan neo-reformed theology (see History of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, 1893-1970). With session controlled communion remaining undefined by the General Synod, and without full Subsciption to the Shorter Catechism, the natural course is that men could then be elected to the eldership and ordained to the gospel ministry who are not full Subscriptionists to the Westminster Confession, the Larger Catechism, and not even the Shorter Catechism. Furthermore, with ruling elders “preaching”, who are neither called nor trained to preach, reinterpretations of the Westminster Standards and false doctrines can easily be introduced through unqualified “preachers” (see LCQA 158). Finally, we note on the denominational website, “How We Are Organised” (http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/) that there is the promotion of the 19th century semi-Presbyterian book by Thomas Witherow (1824-1890), The Apostolic Church – Which is It?; this book categorically ignores historic Presbyterianism and even the Larger Catechism (see Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government, Pastors; LCQA 158). In fact, the book implies that those who differ regarding the distinct office of the gospel minister are “prejudice“.**
With reference to the FCS Continuing, it is similar to the FPCS, but with three additional issues and concerns, wherein the WEPC Presbytery cannot endorse the denomination as a whole: (1) The church officers did not protest and secede over Westminster Confession departures in the FCS (1999-2000); but they seceded with a view to being “forced out” by the church courts rather than over the first mark of a true reformed evangelical church, including sectarian Bibles and a sectarian gospel in the FCS; (2) They have not decided to synodically uphold WCF 1:8 with endorsement of the KJB in pulpit preaching; (3) and we note that the FCS Continuing is not a fully separated denomination having allegiance to an international ecumenical “neo-reformed” synod in association with the FCS (residual), confusing the protest message of their secession (see https://www.icrconline.com).
The Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia and the Presbyterian Reformed Church of North America
What is our disposition toward other Presbyterian denominations who have claimed ‘strict’ Subscription to the Westminster Confession, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, endorsing the use of the KJB, but practicing session controlled communion? The Presbytery of the WEPC is serious about respectful correspondence with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Australia (EPCA) and the Presbyterian Reformed Church of North America (PresRCNA). Nevertheless, we make no apology for the following commitments: (1) The WEPC is in agreement with the legislative intent of the Canons of Dordt concerning the branding of the Remonstrant-Arminian-Pelagian to be heresy, namely, another gospel; we also do not apologise for labelling neo-reformed activists to be sectarians (e.g., Bunyanites, and Hoeksemites); (2) we make no apology for having adopted close catechised Communion or equivalent strict Session controlled Communion, requiring total subscription to the Shorter Catechism for all transfer membership applicants as well as Baptised children;*** (3) we further make no apology to require full subscription to the legislative intent of the Westminster Church Standards for church officers.**** We commend the EPCA for their forthright defence of particular redemption. Yet, we put the question to the Presbytery of the EPCA; do the church officers want to be a part of works of reformation and advance the reformed evangelical faith without confusion, or do they want to continue in fraternal relations with the ProtestantRCNA (refer to Part II)?
Particularly with reference to the PresRCNA: (1) the Presbytery gave little assistance nor encouragement in the 2004 protest and secession from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) with the following OPC synodical gospel departures: documented departures from biblical justification by grace through faith alone, from biblical repentance unto life, and the moral law of God as the rule of right living. (2) Of course, the Presbytery of the PresRCNA was not allowed to enter into serious discussions with seceding ministers and elders from the OPC General Assembly 2004 departures over the gospel of free grace, with the denomination’s pending or completed application to join the ecumenical North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council (see http://www.naparc.org). Nevertheless, we do commend the Presbytery of the PresRCNA for having essentially declared the OPC Central Presbytery’s decision to ‘defrock’ a gospel minister (i.e., deposed) to be in definite error, wherein the 2004 OPC General Assembly refused to even have his appeal heard. The gospel minister had been defrocked for being without a call for more than two years, having honoured his vows in full Subscription to the Westminster Church Standards; and it was noted that he was in the process of accepting a call from a congregation of the PresRCNA. We put the question to the Presbytery of the PresRCNA; isn’t it time to withdraw from NAPARC and to advance the reformed evangelical faith without confusion?
Presbyterian Churches Who Endorse the Regular Pulpit Use of Sectarian Bibles
What is the disposition of the WEPC Presbytery toward reformed evangelical congregational pastors and sessions from other Presbyterian denominations wherein there is unverifiable strict Subscription or broad “system of doctrine” to the Westminster Confession, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, practise exclusive or predominance of psalmody, and practice a weak session controlled communion (e.g., PCEA, RPCS, RPCI, RPCNA, RPCA); and the general synods endorse the regular pulpit use of sectarian Bibles (e.g., the NIV and the ESV)? The WEPC invites professing reformed evangelical parties within such denominations to correspond with us as we seek to have any meetings in their regional area in this call to reformation and to set up preaching station/mission congregations. We call upon the reformed evangelical church officers to make genuine efforts for works of reformation, prepare to secede over the true gospel doctrines, advance the reformed evangelical faith without confusion, and to unify with reformed evangelical Presbyterian congregations. When the Presbytery of the WEPC speak of these reformed evangelical parties, it is understood that the pastors, and some or all of the elders, have surmised that they have survived within these denominations reasonably well; but let us analyse this view of survival. (1) These reformed evangelical sessions are enjoying the opportunity to gain some new members from the denominational association who recognise the errors of the neo-reformed activists; but they also lose some members because of the denominational association, wherein the neo-reformed activists control the Presbyteries and the General Synod. (2) This sends the wrong message to young reformed evangelicals that they can find suitable marriage partners in neo-reformed congregations within the same denomination, since they can automatically take communion in any denominational congregation; after the initial exciting early period of marriage is over, the ordinary expected gospel division in the household begins. (3) Furthermore, whilst it may have happened once in the 20th century that a congregation received and survived having a reformed evangelical minister to reform the congregation (see Romans 8:28), it should not be expected to happen again. Instead, the session should expect ‘truce breaking’ by the Presbytery (see II Tim. 3:3) upon the death or needed retirement of the pastor for ill-health reasons and to try and mould the congregation back to neo-reformed sectarian Bibles (e.g., NIV, ESV) and neo-reformed gospel doctrines. Then the expected result would be scattering of reformed evangelical brethren to almost certainly occur. This ‘truce breaking’ happened so many times, for example, in the FCS, the PCAm, PCEA, the RPCNA, the OPC, etc., that many reformed evangelicals stopped counting how many times it happened and simply expected it.
Presbyterian Congregations Who Sing Mixed Uninspired Hymns and Psalms in Public Worship
With reference to congregational pastors and ruling elders who want to adopt full Subscriptionism to the Westminster Confession, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, yet sing uninspired hymns mixed with psalms in public worship, we present these suggestions for striving for unity in church ordinances: 1) We would prayferful urge these sessions to gradually move the congregational public worship to predominance of psalmody in public worship, in accordance with the Synod of Dordt (Art. 69); 2) Also uninspired hymns can be sung at to a mid-week Bible study and/or at the beginning of catechism instruction studies. We agree that exclusive psalmody is not a reformed evangelical doctrine, that is, not a reformed evangelical fundamental of the faith (it is not included in the Shorter Catechism); nor should it be called “purity of worship” any more than a faithful Communion administered, as fully outlined in the Westminster Confession and the Westminster Directory for the public worhship of God, should be called “purity of Communion”. Yet many reformed Presbyterians would view exclusive Psalmody to be a supporting reformed evangelical church ordinance, being referenced in the Westminster Confession (21:5), Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God (Of Singing of Psalms), and Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government (Of the Ordinances in a particular Congregation).
It should be noted that after secession from the OPC and constituting a new denomination, the Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church (ERPC) eventually folded. Having had first hand knowledge of this new denomination (2005-2015), this gospel minister submits the following reasons, among other reasons, for failure of the denomination (see www.gracehanover.org): (1) the founding church officers seceded from the OPC over declension from biblical justification by grace through faith alone, but did not emphasise biblical repentance unto life as well in the protest; (2) failed to adopt total subscription for church officers to the legislative intent of the Westminster Church Standards; (3) failed to condemn the use of sectarian Bible versions (e.g., RSV, NIV, ESV); (4) NAPARC churches are required to discourage such denominations, wherein the founding church officers seceded over the gospel of Jesus Christ from a NAPARC member church (see http://www.naparc.org); and (5) failed to remove, by Presbytery/Synod decree, antinomian Arminian-Pelagian uninspired hymns from congregational worship.
The Presbytery of the WEPC call upon independent Presbyterian reformed evangelical congregations, reformed evangelical individuals and families to join with us in unified works of reformation, with a biblical gentle or genteel spirit. We remind readers that they are to try to be morally ‘gentle’, that is, genteel in all debates and discussions (see II Tim. 2:24-26). We remind readers of what was explained in the ‘Introduction’ concerning biblical genteel behaviour. Reformed evangelicals are to use the sword of the Lord, with the prudent and appropriate use of scriptural terms (i.e., gospel doctrines of the reformed evangelical faith) and labels (e.g., where definitely appropriate and proven, sects, heresies, perverted gospel, subverting of souls, etc.); but men are not to appear effeminate (see I Cor. 6:9) or display flattery (see Prov. 26:25a) in their mannerism. This contrived appearance and practice, ‘gentle as a lamb’, comes from the 19th century Keswick or high life movement of the Arminian-Pelagian sect. In preparing to depart neo-reformed sectarian congregations, it is to be carefully noted that the proper understanding of Matthew 18:15-18 (KJB comp. with NIV/ESV) is that it is to be followed only with specific reference to scandalous private and personal sins against an individual in question and not public sins of heresy; nor do regular congregational members and attendees need to follow Titus 3:10-11, which is specifically directed at ministers of the gospel and certain other church officers, to confront a heretic and/or urge a young minister to start immediate remedial instruction. It is, however, ordinarily to be done within the same denomination and not denominations of another jurisdiction. Finally, godly husbands are certainly to shield their wives and children from neo-reformed sectarian church officer’s unscrupulous behaviour and false charges of schism, as they depart neo-reformed sectarian congregations and begin attending faithful reformed evangelical congregations.
In any contacts with reformed evangelicals, we set forth that we will try to coordinate with the associated professing reformed evangelical sessions, but not respecting any typical ‘neo-reformed no solution discussions’. Instead, the WEPC will move ahead with preaching station-mission congregations as definitely needed in the event of professing reformed evangelical session inaction and defend reformed evangelical seceders. We will also assist reformed evangelical sessions, if called upon to do so, in taking church property with them in accordance with tithes and offerings to the Westminster Church Standards, or to leave the property behind (see I Cor. 6:1-8).
Total Subscription to the Legislative Intent of the Westminster Standards
Moreover, we uphold total Subscription to the legislative intent of the Westminster Church Standards for deacons, elders, and gospel ministers; and we make no apology for being four office Presbyterians in accordance with the Second Book of Discipline 1578, Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government, and the Synod of Dordt Church Order 1618-19; and ruling elders will only read sermons, or use sermon recordings, as needed (LCQA 158) in the absence of a minister, licensed preacher, or a Presbytery approved student for the ministry giving a word of exhortation. This is also the position of the Netherlands Reformed Congregations and the Reformed Congregation of New Zealand regarding the preaching of the Word. The practice of ruling elders preaching, rather than a rare and definite word of exortation or played recording of a sermon, naturally results in the following unfolding of denominational declension, as it did in the 19th-20th century Free Church of Scotland: (1) not being called to preach nor trained, ruling elders display poor exegesis in the pulpit; (2) in time, it pressures ministers to begin simplifying their sermons, perhaps with forced “revival” type exegesis, contrary to the hermeneutic of the Westminster Standards; (3) in time, it weakens the confessional witness of the church; (4) and finally, it results in reinterpretation of the Westminster Church Standards for the sake of a contrived denominational unity.
It is to be understood that the Presbytery of the WEPC will no longer tolerate persecution of reformed evangelical ministers, elders, and deacons, and other communicant members with the following false accusations: implied ‘mental instability’, ‘legalism’, ‘schism’, including slander, scorning-malice, censure, or excommunication for advancing the minimum evangelical doctrines to be embodied in the legislative intent of the Shorter Catechism for communicant membership as the gospel body of divinity. We also will not tolerate on-going violations of I Corinthians 6:1-8, threatened or acted upon (called ‘vexatious lawsuits’ in Larger Catechism QA 142), and presumptuous moral law code violations in neo-reformed church courts (see proof-texts in LCQA 144-145), because the neo-reformed activists claim their exemptions to obedience to the moral law, even moral law code justice, as desired.
The ‘Wave’ Movements of the Call to Reformation and to Unify in the Reformed Evangelical Faith
What will likely be the result of this call to reformation and departure from neo-reformed sectarianism? It appears by Scripture history and examples of church history that there will be six ‘wave’ movements: (1) the establishment of Presbyterian reformed evangelical preaching station-mission congregations and reception or merger of likeminded independent reformed evangelical Presbyterian congregations, with developing of dominion and overseas mission/preaching stations and congregations; (2) reformed evangelical parties taking control of a Presbyterian denomination and the disciplining of the ranks, with neo-reformed congregations and church officers departing; and/or there will be a secession movement of reformed evangelical congregations and church officers from neo-reformed controlled denominations, seeking to unite with other reformed evangelical Presbyterians; (3) after reformed evangelical separation, some neo-reformed professing Christians should start taking note of the depleting ranks of the neo-reformed denominations, the notable departure of the godly leaven of reformed evangelicalism, and a growing unity in Presbyterian reformed evangelicalism; Lord willing, this should encourage some inquirers to attend genuine reformed evangelical congregations to hear reformed evangelical preaching; (4) the truly reformed evangelical Baptist realm and reformed Congregational-Independent realm will likely be encouraged and strengthened in numbers as well; (5) the world will soon start to notice the advancement of genuine reformed evangelical churches and its marked fruit of godliness in distinction from the neo-reformed false gospel; (6) and in time, the unified reformed evangelical denominations and international sister denominations will become a moral voting block to be reckoned with and negotiated with in state and national governments.
Certainly, reformed evangelical church officers should pray for revival. The Sovereign Lord God in the heavens knows how many reformed evangelical heads of households and wives have not only prayed for revival, but prayed for reformation in family and secret worship for many, many years, patiently waiting for answers to their prayers; but others seem to only pray for revival. Prayer must be for revival with Protestant evangelical reformation and specific wisdom for concrete moral good works of reformation; or another reformation will pass by certain “revivalists”, and they may be found to be supporting the neo-reformed sectarian false gospel sectarian churches.
The Spiritual Fight Over Biblical Saving Faith
Has our time for reformation come? The Presbytery of the WEPC says our time indeed has come to protest and to unify as reformed evangelical Presbyterians! It is time to return to the 16th and 17th centuries works of reformation, with striving together for true gospel doctrinal unity between reformed evangelical churches (John 17:13-23; Acts 10:32-33; 16:4-5; I Cor. 1:10: Phil. 1:27; Jude 3), with the biblical marking out of the sectarians (Rom. 16:17-19; Gal. 1:6-9; Jude 3-4 KJB); and it is time to purify the Lord’s Supper with reformed evangelical fencing of the Lord’s Supper by close catechised Communion (see I Cor. 11:18-19; II Cor. 11:3-4; Gal. 5:19-21 KJB). The pre-1960s Reformed Presbyterian (Covenanted) Churches were correct concerning close catechised Communion and catechetical preaching through the heads of doctrines in the Larger Catechism as well as the Shorter Catechism (see Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, Of the Preaching of the Word; Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government, Pastors and Of the Ordinances in a Particular Congregation). Let us take note again and seek to remember. No one can be saved nor have assurance of Salvation (Psa. 119:165; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 1:13-14; Heb. 12:14) without true saving faith: that is, commitment to the Scriptures as the only rule of faith and obedience, biblical justification by grace through faith alone, and biblical repentance unto life. The Westminster Confession’s explanation of saving faith is spot on: “By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God Himself speaking therein; and acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace“ (see WCF 14:2). Amen and Amen.
* See the Epistle to the Reader at the beginning of Thomas Vincent’s, The Shorter Catechism explained from Scripture, wherein numerous church officers signed including the following: John Owen, Thomas Manton, William Jenkyn, Thomas Brooks, and Thomas Watson. They reference the Shorter Catechism to be the first principles of the doctrine of Christ.
** This book, Thomas Witherow (1824-1890), The Apostolic Church – Which is It?, has been published and republished since and before 1991 by a synod committee of the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
*** Prof. William Barker (1934- ), former moderator of the PCAm (1994) and former professor of church history at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, PA (and former President, Covenant Theological Seminary, PCAm St Louis, MO) wrote this in a “Forward” of a facsimile reprint of a 1648 official edition of the Westminster Standards (reprinted 1997): “Whereas the Shorter Catechism was originally intended for the instruction of the uneducated and youth, we do well today to have ministerial candidates learn it.” First, this is a rather shocking comparison for even a neo-reformed semi-Presbyterian church history professor to make, reflecting on the capacity of his own theological students. Second, the Church of Scotland Adoption Act of 1648, mentioning nothing about the ‘uneducated’, indicates that it was for those of weaker capacity, and not particularly for church officers (see Larger Catechism and Westminster Confession); yet the Shorter Catechism was still for the ‘intended uniformity’ of the Church of Scotland and “nothing contrary to the Word of God” (see Church of Scotland, Adoption Act 1648). Third, Mr. Barker did not state the Shorter Catechism’s use for ‘intended uniformity’ nor preparation for the Lord’s Supper; but he was merely somewhat hopeful that students for the ministry might learn it. With this ‘introduction’ or ‘forward’, why should they? Without qualification, Professor Barker had reduced even the Shorter Catechism to a guide or commentary, allowing for personal exceptions, or ignore altogether.
—Introduction – Part 1 – Part 2