The Epistle to the Reader

In accordance with the Scriptures and fulfilment of the duty of ministers, ruling elders, and deacons to make clear the Apostolic doctrines and church ordinances, namely, the Christian fundamentals of the faith (Acts 2:42; Rom. 16:17-18; I Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:1-6; Phil. 1:27; Jude 3-4, KJB, Geneva B), the Apostolic gospel doctrines are to be placed in a booklet (see II Tim. 4:13) and memorized by some, as they are able. Therefore, the reformers of the 16th and the 17th centuries established catechisms for the reformed churches: e.g., Geneva Catechism (1545), Heidelberg Catechism (1563), Shorter Catechism (1648), and the Reformed Baptist Catechism (1689, 1693); and then later came Charles Spurgeon’s Catechism (1864). A reformed catechism is simply a booklet in question and answer form to teach the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith, that is, the fundamentals of the Christian faith. Whilst the reformed churches of Helvetica (Switzerland), Holland, England, Scotland, and Ireland did accept Baptism from various reformed congregations and even sectarian congregations in transfer (SCQA 96-97), they did not transfer communicant membership from any church. They instead set forth requirements for communicant membership, including learning and confessing the church’s reformed catechism and displaying evangelical obedience in speech and actions (see SCQA 87, 90).

The reformed evangelical Shorter Catechism was written by ministers of the gospel in the Church of England Westminster Assembly, with commissioner gospel ministers and church governors (ruling elders) from the Church of Scotland, during the years 1643-1647. It was soon adopted by the Church of Scotland (1648) and the ‘Presbyterian’ Church of England (1648) to be the introductory church catechism for communicant church membership, which would promote gospel doctrinal and Apostolic church ordinance unity in every congregation in a national church-denomination; and it was to be used to determine when a faithful church had fallen from the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith (Acts 15:5; Rom. 12:16; 16:17; I Cor. 1:10; 11:18-19; Gal. 5:15-21, KJB, Geneva B). Prior to this, they had been using either the Geneva Catechism (1545) or the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), as the introductory catechism in England, Ireland, and Scotland for communicant membership, along with preaching according to their respective creeds and confessions.

At the Westminster Assembly, the ministers of the gospel and church governors (I Cor 12:28, KJB, Geneva B) were predominantly committed to Presbyterian church form of government; but there was a very small minority who displayed themselves to be committed to Congregational-Independency church government. The minority ministers of the Word, and some church governors, later formed a reformed church association and published the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order (1658) to be distinct and dissenting from the Presbyterian Westminster Confession. In this manner, the reformed Congregational-Independents tried to continue to advance the reformed evangelical faith. In the 17th century, the Congregational-Independents did not write another reformed catechism for communicant membership, but continued to employ the Shorter Catechism for congregational doctrinal unity from 1648-1700 (see also Congregational-Independent, Thomas Ridgely, A Body of Divinity, explaining the Larger Catechism, 1731); and first the Heidelberg Catechism, the Geneva Catechism and then the Westminster Shorter Catechism were the catechisms in use in Northern America in the Massachusetts Colony, in the latter part of the 17th century for communicant membership. The congregations were reformed evangelical Congregational-Independents, in a reformed association.

The Shorter Catechism became the introductory catechism to teach baptized basic adherents, even older children coming to years of discretion (age 12 and up) in reformed evangelical homes on the Lord’s Day and in home schooling, to confess the gospel body of divinity for preparation for the Lord’s Supper (see SCQA 96-97). The Shorter Catechism was adopted in the following manner by the Church of Scotland in 1648 (see The Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, Free Presbyterian Publications, 1648, 1958, 1970, 1976):

The General Assembly having seriously considered the Shorter Catechism agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines sitting at Westminster, with assistance of commissioners of the Kirk; do find, upon due examination thereof, that the said Catechism is agreeable to the word of God and in nothing contrary to the received doctrine, worship, and government of this Kirk: And therefore approve the said Shorter Catechism, as a part of the intended uniformity, to be a Directory for catechising such as are of weaker capacity.

We note that the Shorter Catechism was to be part of the intended uniformity of the Church of Scotland and the Church of England (1648). Now what does that mean? It means that all church officers were to subscribe in total to the Shorter Catechism, as well as the Larger Catechism and the Westminster Confession. Those neo-reformed preachers who skip over the ‘intended uniformity’ to get to “catechising such as are of weaker capacity” are not serious about being Westminster Presbyterian nor Apostolic unity in gospel doctrines of the reformed evangelical faith. When they speak of substantially agreeing with the ‘subordinate’ standards, including the Shorter Catechism, as a professing reformed Presbyterian church, the end result is division in a national church-denomination even in the gospel doctrines of the faith: and they cannot and do not earnestly contend for the reformed evangelical faith throughout the church (Phil. 1:27; Jude 3, KJB, Geneva B). The Church of Scotland (1648) and the ‘Presbyterian’ Church of England (1648-1700) made the Shorter Catechism the intended uniformity for all church officers and for communicant membership (see SCQA 96-97). It was further adopted in the Presbyterian Church of North America (1715). Since the Shorter Catechism was also intended to be the lowest level of subscription for communicant membership in accordance with Acts 2:42, Romans 16:17-18, I Corinthians 1:10, 11:18-30, Philippians 1:27, and Galatians 5:19-21, then what does it mean when a Presbyterian denomination crosses that line of departure from the reformed evangelical faith? Instead of women in church office or being “forced out,” the final line for secession, as dreamed up in the mid-20th century, it is first and foremost departure on the reformed evangelical faith in an established reformed catechism. Why is this not known in so many professing Presbyterian congregations in the 21st century? It is because heretical translators and especially the final editors took the word ‘heresy’ and ‘heretic’ out of 20th century Bible translations; and in time, neo-reformed churches lost the fundamentals of the faith, that is, the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith.

Now if the total subscription was for intended uniformity (Rom. 12:16; 16:17-18; I Cor. 1:10; I Pet. 3:8-12, KJB, Geneva B) for communicant members, it means that those members in the church can more easily have church biblical fellowship and be an example to baptized basic adherents and visitors. Communicant members have a standard for God-fearing companionship (Psa. 119:63) and for pursuing marriage and remarriage, rather than fearing doctrinal arguments in a potential marriage and even divorce or desertion. The reformed catechism or respective church catechisms become a matter for pertinent discussion in serious courtship. They will learn what ‘love is’ (Jn. 14:15; I Cor. 13:6; Phil. 2:2, I Jn. 3:14-19; II Jn. 4-6, KJB, Geneva B), and in contrast what ‘hate’ is (see 6th commandment); and further the Shorter Catechism became the minimum standard for determining a faithful church to regularly attend and seek membership, as well as to determine when to depart from a congregation or church-denomination. Furthermore, when a professing Christian, even a professing ‘reformed’ Christian, flees over to another similar congregation in doctrinal and moral decline or another similar church-denomination expecting different results is simply wishful thinking against the obvious end result.

When a pastoral minister either refuses to defend Shorter Catechism doctrines, or any reformed catechism, twists the legislative intent meaning (see below) or admits to departure from the Shorter Catechism, it is time to leave that congregation. That pastor cannot subscribe to the Apostolic doctrines nor does he care to do so. Moreover, as regards to a church, that has descended from the Church of Scotland (1689 Settlement), that does not have the Shorter Catechism as part of the intended uniformity, after splits and realignments over the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith, the divisive arguments unto splits can be expected to happen again. Why? To put it plainly, the arguments will be over the gospel doctrines of Jesus Christ until the Westminster Presbyterian Shorter Catechism is restored as part of the “intended uniformity” for communicant membership and determining the minimum standards for the Chrisitan fundamentals of the faith and church ordinances for unity.

Moreover, the 20th century neo-reformed practice of allowing in new communicant members without definite uniformity subscription to the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith is the exact formula for infiltration of lascivious behavior in the church (Rom. 16:17-18; Jude 3-4). Why would church officers promote open communion or “quickie” pastoral or session controlled communion? The possible answers are threefold: 1) the church officers are in transition and are striving to be reformed evangelical; 2) they are unqualified for church office; or 3) they are heretics. Then those who are unteachable and falsely argue back that close or closed communion is unloving or judgmental prefer a neo-reformed or neo-evangelical sectarian church and are in time proved to be ‘dull of hearing’ (Matt. 13:15; Acts 2:42; I Cor. 1:10; Phil. 1:27; 1:2; Heb. 5:11-12, KJB, Geneva B).

Furthermore, the God-fearing repentant believing communicant members will advance in sanctification, with a Presbyterian church-denomination having the Larger Catechism as well as the Westminster Confession as church standards. They will hear sermons based on the extensive biblical moral law of God as expanded in the Larger Catechism (see QA 40). Also hearing the whole counsel of God preached from the pulpit, gifted communicant men in due course can be trained to be church officers; and communicant older women can teach younger women the content mentioned in Titus 2:1-8. Moreover, in a Presbyterian church-denomination, it is the communicant members first and foremost who elect church officers and even a pastor. Therefore, having the Shorter Catechism “as a part of the intended uniformity, to be a Directory for catechising such as are of weaker capacity,” the communicant members can maintain the Westminster Presbyterian congregations for many years to come, for their children and grandchildren. Having the Shorter Catechism a mere guide or subordinate standard in congregations, the result will be divisions as in the churches of Corinth, and then even worse the churches of Galatia; and church subordinate standards is a terrible misnomer. It in essence means they have no church standards. If the professing Presbyterian church had church standards, the review for debate and considered amendment for any of the church standards, including Directories, would be the Presbyterian general synod (WCF 32:3-4), but with a biblical procedure followed (Acts 15:5; 16:4-5, KJB, Geneva B): for example, the Church of Scotland church standards (1560, 1592) were revised, amended, and altered to the Westminster Standards (1645-48); and accordingly, with this honorable biblical method of review, the faithful church officers and congregations would know when to depart-secede certainly upon church declension in the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith, departing from the Shorter Catechism.

It may be objected here by some readers, that either the Apostolic doctrines are not very clear in the Scriptures or that the early New Testament church soon settled in with gospel division in the Roman Empire Church unto the Roman Catholic church; and that the early Apostolic book-catechisms were lost (II Tim. 4:13). This severe false teaching goes along with the sad imagination that results in God losing His Bible. The sad implication is that they surmise God lost His Bible, lost His Apostolic doctrines and church ordinances (see SCQA 2-3, 7). Instead, we can learn from church history that God preserved his Word and His Apostolic doctrines among the Culdee-Celtic church and the Culdee-Valdees (also called Waldensians); and why did the Culdees and Valdees move out of Galatia and Corinth and into Europe in the 4th to the 5th centuries? The answer is because of two reasons: 1) The Roman Empire church was in severe gospel doctrinal decline and become the Roman Catholic church. If the church officers struggled to get the Trinity, the virgin birth of Christ against the heretics of Alexandria, then the Roman Empire Church no longer had the Apostolic Doctrines of the Christian faith as national church doctrines; and 2) God Sovereignly wanted the faithful God-fearing repentant believers out of the Roman Catholic church and to move up north in Europe. Thereby they would not be around for God’s punishment on the Roman Catholic church in the 7th century, with the invasion of the Mohammadans (Islam) in North Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Europe. This is why the label ‘church fathers’ was phased out by the reformers in the 17th century and no longer used.

It may be further objected by some readers that such a teaching as what Bible to use in faithful churches and a reformed catechism to fence the Lord’s table would be considered divisive among so many professing Christians and further divide the visible church than it already is. In answer to this concern, historically in the 16th and 17th centuries, this was not the case. In fact, it is the exact opposite. There were far less divisions in the visible church; and most importantly the reformed evangelical national churches in Helvetica (Switzerland), Holland, Scotland and Northern Ireland had much unity in the reformed evangelical faith. They could biblically counsel in marriage and remarriage, and they taught people to give a reason for the hope which is within them (I Pet. 3:15). They also phased out of weekly communion, wherein hopeful peace of conscience was not placed in weekly or daily partaking of the Lord’s Supper, but worthy partaking with biblical assurance of salvation under the covenant of grace: two to six times a years (see SCQA 36, 97); and these national churches knew what a sect was, had a standard for heresy and to deal with heretical ministers (Acts 15:5; I Cor. 11:18-19; Galatians 5:19-21; Tit. 3:10-11; II Pet. 2:1-3 (KJB, Geneva B).

 

20th Century Bible Versions and Heretical Divisions

In the 20th century, distinctive “Protestant” Christian churches, congregations, associations and denominations had proliferated into massive numbers of separated churches, without regard to right of distinctive existence under Christ the King and Head of the Church. In order to reign in and somewhat control the divisions, departures and realignments, some neo-reformed church pastors and other church officers have become congregational authoritarians in severe violation of the 1st and 5th commandments; and others have simply accepted it and formed sectarian associations or semi-presbyterian churches. Romans 16:17-18 was changed in meaning from clearly emphasizing and referencing the Apostolic doctrines, as the Christian fundamentals of the faiths, to referencing the present pastoral ministry in a given congregation and his “fundamentals of the faith”; and then when the next minister comes, his pastoral ministry becomes the new standard. The end result is divisions, schisms, and shifting congregations; and in the worst case scenario, some make up reasons to stop church attendance altogether.

Many neo-reformed congregations have come to practice open communion with a plea from the pulpit to invite any and all professing Christians to partake, and/or a very minimal list of questions to ask during examination for communicant membership or guests, called a ‘credible’ profession of faith: that is, ‘quickie’ pastoral or session controlled Lord’s Supper and often at the door (see explanation QA 96-97); and they automatically transfer membership from known sectarian neo-reformed semi-Presbyterian congregations, who had departed from the Shorter Catechism gospel body of divinity. These unbiblical neo-evangelical and neo-reformed church administrations of the Lord’s Supper fit with 20th century sectarian Bible versions (e.g., RSV, NASV, NIV, and ESV), having been translated with far too many of the translation committees and the final editors being heretics (e.g., Roman Catholics, Unitarian-Modernists, and associated neo-evangelicals and neo-reformed sectarians).

All the 20th century translations deliberately violated three fundamental doctrinal principles of Scripture (ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, and the ESV). (1) Rejecting God’s Providential Preservation of the Scriptures (SCQA 2-3): which means God did not preserve His Word and lost it in the falsely alleged failed Providence of God. (2) Following the Papal Antichrist, they borrowed manuscripts from the Vatican to utilize corrupt manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt, which in time had ushered in Mohammadism, and thereby accepted Roman Catholic priests to be on their translation and editorial teams. (3) Rejecting God’s Providential Preservation of the Apostolic doctrines (namely, reformed evangelical doctrines) and church ordinances, they deliberately followed the Papacy to remove the literal Greek word for heresies and heretic in the translations, and some removed the literal Greek word for ‘heretical party’ or sect (Acts 15:5; I Cor. 11:18-19; Gal. 5:19-21; Tit. 3:10, KJB, Geneva B); and the NKJV, with similar mistranslations, was published with footnotes in rejection of Providential Preservation of the Scriptures. Thereby all the 20th century final editors and some translators of these mentioned translations (see ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV, and the ESV), except the NKJV, agreed to work against the reformed evangelical faith, suppress reformed evangelical ministers and the preaching of the reformed evangelical faith; and reformed catechisms are treated as mere guides and little or no help in church unity nor reformation in a state or nation.

A reformed evangelical time-honored biblical principle was written into the Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God (1645) concerning Bible translations for public use: “All the canonical books of the Old and New Testament (but none of those which are commonly called Apocrypha) shall be publickly read in the vulgar tongue, out of the best allowed translation, distinctly, that all may read and hear” (Of Publick Reading of the Scriptures). According to the Westminster Confession 1:8, including the Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order of 1658 and the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, the best translation available in regular print would first be the King James Bible (1611, 1767 spelling update); and the second choice would be the Geneva Bible (1599), but not in regular print with as many printings as the KJB. Some reformed evangelicals call the KJB, the Authorized Version, but not to give any credence to the notion that King James I authorized it (1611), as a civil magistrate. King James I only endorsed it and promoted it, as a civil King. Instead, the KJB was authorized by the 17th century reformed Church of England and reformed Church of Scotland. Therefore, all Scripture references and quotes in this book will be in accordance with the King James Bible or the Geneva Bible unless otherwise stated.

If readers are unfamiliar with the use of the word ‘heresy’, ‘heretic’, or ‘sect’ directly related to Acts 15:5, I Corinthians 5:6, 11:18-19, II Corinthians 11:3-4, Galatians 1:6-9, 7-9, 5:19-21, Titus 3:10-11, II Peter 2:1-3, and Jude 3-4 (see KJB, Geneva B), it is because they have been attending a weak church striving to be reformed evangelical church using the NKJV, or an unfaithful church, using the ecumenical and sectarian New International Version (NIV) or the English Standard Version (ESV). The sectarian main translators presumptuously failed to translate the exact Greek word to be ‘sect’, ‘heresies’, and ‘heretic’ in Acts 15:5, I Corinthians 11:18-19, Galatians 5:19-21, and Titus 3:10-11; and whilst the American Standard Version (ASV) and the New American Standard Version (NASV) did maintain the term ‘sect’ (i.e., ‘heretical party’ in the literal Greek) in Acts 15:5, they failed to get ‘heresy’ or ‘heretic’ into the crucial mistranslated passages. Whilst the New King James Bible (NKJV) translators did put ‘sect’ in Acts 15:5 and managed to put ‘heresies’ back into the list of scandalous sins in Galatians 5:19-21, however, the main translators failed and made a crucial error in the translation of I Corinthians 11:18-19 as well as Titus 3:10-11 (KJB, Geneva B); and with ‘heretic’ mistranslated to be a factious or divisive person, how does a reformer, ruling elder, deacon or other God-fearing repentant believer seek to question a given pastor on apparent gospel departures in sermons (see Tit. 3:10-11)?  Pastors who employ 20th century translations are ignorant of the fundamental errors, others not qualified for the pastoral ministry, or are heretics (Tit. 3:10, KJB, Geneva B); and they at the very least need remedial instruction and starting by changing translations unto those endorsed in the Westminster Standards: KJB and/or the Geneva Bible. Upon questioning by a reformed evangelical, if the pastor resorts, however, to name calling, reviling, (Tit. 3:11, NIV, NKJV, NASV), implying ‘warped’ or ‘perverted’ behavior, the solution is to end the discussion (Rom. 16:17-19; Gal. 5:15) and seek out an honorable reformed evangelical congregation for transition.

 

The Necessity of All True Reformed Congregations to Endorse and Adopt a Reformed Catechism

Certainly, we can and should speak of some professing ‘reformed’ churches striving to be reformed evangelical, if they indeed are honorable in striving for advancing the Apostolic doctrines, the Christian fundamentals of the faith (Acts 2:42; Rom. 16:17-18; Phil. 1:27; Jude 3-4). Yet at a certain point, it becomes most apparent that some professing ‘reformed’ pastors are presumptuous, arrogant, and have no definite interest in the Apostolic doctrines and church ordinances, with an honorable reformed evangelical catechism; then they should be labelled neo-reformed churches, both Anabaptists and Padeobaptists. If such professing ‘reformed’ churches have no interest in true biblical saving faith, including no interest in reformed evangelical obedience, required in biblical repentance unto life (see QA 87, 90), then we can and should refer to those churches to be following in the ways of the 19th and 20th centuries neo-evangelical and neo-reformed sects (see Matt. 7:21-23; Lk. 3:3-14; Acts 11:18; 15:5; II Tim. 2:19; II Jn 4-6); but what about the true meaning of I Corinthians 8:1, can Bible doctrinal knowledge inherently puff someone up with pride? Answer, first this verse cannot refer to opposing learning, advancing, and maturing in the doctrinal true Christian faith; that false conclusion and interpretation, ‘God forbid,’ is impossible. The verse must refer to sectarian doctrinal knowledge, with heretical preaching, which may indeed cause the aggressive sectarian to be prideful, puffed up, and a divisive sectarian. Now a stubborn preacher may “double down” on this verse, take it out of context, ignore all the Scripture passages teaching the necessity of fundamental doctrinal knowledge (Prov. 1:20-23; 2:1-5; Acts 2:42; Rom. 16:17-18; I Cor. 1:10; Phil 1:27; I Tim. 4:16; Jude 3-4), and neglect the Apostolic doctrinal fundamentals of the Christian faith. Then sadly, that preacher is either ungifted or a sectarian and wants to force his sectarian doctrines on the congregation (Acts 15:5; Tit. 3:10-11; II Pet. 2:1-3). Furthermore, simply speaking of “reformed” in contrast to “evangelical,” that is, broadly evangelical, will not advance the true gospel nor reform the church. These churches are often neo-reformed or neo-evangelical sects. Giving up the name “reformed” and “evangelical” to those that are neither reformed nor evangelical will not advance the gospel of free grace unto reformation.

In adopting a reformed catechism is it helpful to use the 19th century summary of the reformed evangelical faith? If it remains only a summary, but along with a reformed catechism to be employed for communicant membership, then it can be useful. If it is used without a reformed catechism, however, then the summary becomes the “catechism” itself; and it thereby violates the biblical principle of having a sufficient biblical catechism for a mark of a true church (Acts 2:42; Rom. 16:17-18; I Cor. 1:10; II Cor. 11:3-4; Phil 1:27; Jude 3-4, KJB, Geneva B). Consider this common summary: “Scripture Alone, Jesus Alone, and Faith Alone.” What is the doctrinal position of the congregation concerning the Scriptures? What is the doctrinal understanding of the person and saving work of Jesus Christ, and what ‘Faith’ is the summary meant to be speaking of? Is the summary meant to be referring to saving faith (see SCQA 86) or justifying faith (see SC 33)? Such a summary standing alone cannot guard against sectarian infiltration by heretics or assist anyone to gain assurance of salvation nor peace of conscience (see SCQA 36). For this gospel minister, when asked by visitors in the congregation for a summary of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, a Shorter Catechism is handed to them; other reformed evangelical congregations would hand out the Heidelberg Catechism. Reformed evangelical Congregationalists would use the Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism; and Reformed Baptist Congregations would use the Reformed Baptist Catechism (1689, 1693).

Some readers may object though, claiming that the Shorter Catechism or the Heidelberg Catechism is too overwhelming for children, many visitors including basic baptized adherent Christians. When speaking of children, it is well known in church history and still today in reformed evangelical churches, and those striving to be reformed evangelical, that the Heidelberg Catechism, the Shorter Catechism, or the Reformed Baptism Catechism is definitely used in the home by parents for Apostolic church doctrinal instruction; and in many reformed evangelical congregations, the pastor catechetically teaches through the reformed catechism, for ages 12-15, in preparation for seeking to become communicant members. In home schooling and some professing reformed Christian Schools, a reformed catechism is taught and memorized. With visitors and basic baptized adherents, the Apostolic doctrines may be overwhelming, unless being drawn by the Holy Spirit unto effectual calling (namely, born again) by Word and Spirit (SCQA 31); and this is made clear in Matthew 13:15, Luke 8:11-15; John 3:3,5, II Corinthians 2:14-17, and Hebrews 5:11-14. This objection was used in the mid-20th century by many neo-reformed preachers and to not preach the reformed evangelical doctrines; and only an ignorant, ungifted, or heretical pastor wants to function in a congregation without a reformed catechism. When a given pastor says that our congregation does not need a catechism, as we have the Bible as our creed and need nothing else, then the pastor is either not qualified to be a pastor or is a heretic (see Rom. 16:17-18; Phil. 1:27; Tit. 3:10-11; II Pet. 2:1-3, KJB, Geneva B); and it is time to walk out of that congregation for the last time, since he does not want to vow to be a reformed evangelical preacher.

In making this pronouncement, this may not be branded divisive, unloving or judgmental, but following in the ways of Jesus Christ and the Apostles, calling out every wind of doctrine, even another gospel (Matt. 12:33-39; 15:1-9; 16:6-12; Acts 2:42; II Cor 11:3-4; Gal. 1:6-9; Eph 4:11-14, KJB, Geneva B). To state otherwise is to express wholesale ignorance of the Scriptures and ignorantly to implicate Jesus Christ, besides the Apostles and the Prophets, into “unloving” scandalous sinners. Instead, in accordance with the duties of Christ’s ministers, it is a blessing to hear preaching that includes carefully calling out sectarian false gospel doctrines (II Cor. 11:3-4: Gal. 1:6-9; Eph. 4:11-14; Jude 3-4). Those who equate such forthright concerns for the souls of men in the true gospel of free grace to be unloving have a very different view of love (Phil. 2:2), morality, blessing and caring for the souls of men (I Tim. 4:1-4); and they are rejecting the Apostle Peter’s exhortation for making one’s calling and election sure as well as failure to heed the warning of exposing false teachers (Rom. 16:17; II Cor. 11:3-4; 13:5; II Pet. 1:3-11; 2:1-3; Tit. 3:10-11, KJB, Geneva B). According to Westminster Presbyterianism, secession is definitely in order in accordance with ‘worthy partaking’ at the Lord’s Supper (see explanation, QA 96-97), if the denomination has no interest in reforming, with unconverted ministers as church ‘mentors’ or ‘scholars’ who seek to authoritatively control the Presbyterian church courts (I Tim. 4:16; Tit. 3:10-11, KJB, Geneva B); and the false argument to take I Corinthians 11:31 out of context, and let the people alone decide by open communion to partake will certainly in due course have the punishment of the Lord God upon the people (I Cor. 11:26-30; Jude 3-5), embarrass the church and even before the world (II Pet. 2:1-3).

At this point, some may object and say that the writers and subscribers of the Westminster Shorter Catechism added some things formerly not deemed Protestant evangelical fundamentals of the faith: such as six-day creationism, perpetual covenant of works, ‘conditional’ covenant of grace, and close or closed communion. First thing, all these things were already being faithfully preached and implemented in reformed evangelical churches. Six-day creationism is taught in plain English in any faithful Bible translation; and to deny it, is to usher in theistic evolution with severe fundamental errors in the church, unto sectarianism and experimental ‘survival of the fittest’ physician treatment (see 6th commandment). Also, the common practice in the reformed Church of Geneva, reformed Church of Holland, reformed Church of England, and reformed Church of Scotland was closed communion or close church-denominational communicant partaking at the Lord’s Supper, with the reformed catechism to be definitely taught unto uniformity. Reformed evangelical Baptist churches came to even practice closed communion, with ‘visible saints’ and church membership. Also a right understanding of the reformed evangelical covenant of works (SCQA 12) and the covenant of grace (SCQA 20) were proven to be most important to the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith in the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. In the case of Westminster Presbyterianism, we have everything needed in the Shorter Catechism and further explained in the Larger Catechism for reformed evangelical faithful preaching. A faithful reformed evangelical church having the Three Forms of Unity church standards in church history needed to add to the Heidelberg Catechism, the Canons of Dordt (1618-19) and later the Westminster Confession.

The final argument we ought to deal with is speaking of “lovely Christians” in congregations that are either sliding into a sect or are sects, with the simple faith false gospel or justification by faith plus works. Contrary to biblical usage and teaching, “loving Christians” is an unbiblical term for such basic adherent Christians who flock to and continue in sectarian congregations (II Tim. 3:1-7; 4:3-4). The proper biblical label would be “nice Christians” (Rom. 2:14-15) or “nominal Christians” for those the Lord Jesus Christ said, “heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing” (Matt. 13:15). Some tell-tale signs of a heretical preacher are the severely false teachings: such as, preaching against the reformed evangelical moral law of God, branding it legalism, and that the Pharisees were outwardly godly, but inwardly evil, or that “sin is sin” and no hierarchy of sins in the Christian life. This is a sign of a preacher that has no understanding of so many reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith (e.g., effectual calling-new birth, initial sanctification unto saints, biblical saving faith, evangelical obedience, progressive sanctification and peace of conscience, etc.). It will also promote severe unrest and stress in the congregations resulting in double mindedness, evil surmising, evil speaking, talebearing, false judging, cursing one another, and unto biting and devouring one another (Gal. 5:15; I Tim. 6:3-5; Jm. 3:1-18; 4:6-12).

 

The Necessity of Preaching and Reading the Word with the Reformed Evangelical Hermeneutic

The 20th century false translations also ushered in a new unbiblical hermeneutic to interpret Scripture that works against a church having confessions and catechisms, because the hermeneutic is inherently anti-Apostle’s doctrines and leads to declension unto heresies. The hermeneutic itself is promotive of massive confusion, being invented by the Unitarian-Modernists in Germany and Swiss-Germany (19th century) to be against the Apostolic doctrines. It is worthy of note that all three reformed confessions, Westminster Confession (1647), Savoy Declaration of Faith and Order (1658), and the Reformed Baptist Confession (1689) teach the same hermeneutic, that is, the same method of interpreting Scripture (see SCQA 2-3).

The 19th century redemptive-historical hermeneutic was not designed to promote a theology leading to mere amendments to reformed confessions or catechisms. It was designed to end the use of creeds, confessions, and catechisms for all practical purposes in the visible church. Therefore, it cannot be truly called redemptive-historical theology, deliberately not leading to a ‘system of theology.’ That is why in every neo-reformed semi-Presbyterian church, church standards came to be called ‘subordinate standards’: wherein they mean subordinate to theological professor training and pulpit preaching, instead of by Presbyterian General Synod debate procedure (WCF 31:3-4). The redemptive historical hermeneutic is inherently very divisive and destructive to the gospel of free grace. Those who preach by this hermeneutic cannot even preach the true gospel unto salvation nor assurance of salvation.

Of course, we must answer the objection, but professors of theology wrote systematic theologies in the 19th and 20th centuries. Does that not prove that redemptive-historical teachers can have a system of theology, even if they claim it is the latest “exegetical theology” (a misnomer)? No not at all; all it did was produce numerous personal views of church subordinate standards that could not result in amending the Three Forms of Unity nor the Westminster Standards; and further these alleged “systematic theologies” only last as subordinate standards for 10 to 20 years. The scholars behind this hermeneutic are not Presbyterians. They are neo-reformed semi-presbyterians or Congregational-Independents by genuine conviction or practice; and they are as bad as dispensational Baptists, if not worse; and where did the term Bible “scholars” come from, and the phrase “the scholars are divided,” even over the gospel of Jesus Christ? Answer, it came from 19th century German earned doctorates that made up the label ‘biblical theology’; and being Unitarian-Modernists, it was neither biblical nor theological (II Pet. 2:1-3).

Many are isolationists in their understanding of the gospel in different periods of Scripture church history: from the time of Adam to Abraham, from the time of Abraham to the time of Moses, from Moses to the time of Christ in the gospel accounts, and from the time of the Epistles to the time of Revelation. Furthermore, they deny Providential preservation of the Scriptures (see SCQA 2-3), and they at best seek to make Jesus as the Savior-Priest, under the gospel of justification by faith plus works or the simple faith false gospel; but they do not teach true biblical saving faith in Jesus as Prophet (Acts 3:19-23), Priest (Psa. 110:4; Heb. 7:1-17; 9:11), and King (Jn. 1:49; Jm. 4:10-12; Rev. 1:5; 19:16).

Therefore, as we seek to explain the Shorter Catechism and root the evangelical doctrines in Scripture (see Acts 17:11), we will definitely seek to use the legislation intent meaning of the Shorter Catechism with long established rules of reading comprehension and compare with the Larger Catechism and Westminster Confession. Then the catechetical instruction will be rooted in Scripture with the grammatical-historical method of hermeneutics and further comparison made with other portions of Scripture in the same doctrine and same moral precept (I Cor. 2:13).

 

The Uniformity in Doctrine, Worship, and Practice in Historic Reformed National Presbyterian Churches

Now how did the Church of Scotland then influence the Church of England and Ireland and accomplish such uniformity in the Westminster Standards, namely, total subscription? In this explanation, the writer is focusing on the Apostolic doctrines and church ordinances in the Shorter Catechism with references from the Larger Catechism and the Westminster Confession. The total subscription of the Church of Scotland in 1647-48 came about first with church officers committed to the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith. Then the Church of Scotland ministers of the Word were preaching the whole counsel of God as well (Acts 20:26-27: II Tim. 3:16-17; II Tim. 4:1-2). With this in mind, the Shorter Catechism is to teach God-fearing repentant believers to take the Lord’s Supper and to know a true church for church attendance or at least to consider a church striving to be reformed evangelical. This is the minimum standard, that is, a reformed evangelical catechism. Attendees or even communicant members of congregations which are neo-reformed or neo-evangelical should not be simply transferred to gain members rapidly. This is failure to take heed to warnings of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King and Head of the Church and the Apostles (Lk. 8:11-15: I Corinthians 11:17-30; II Tim. 3:1-7; 4:1-4; II Pet. 2:1-3).

Furthermore, the Church of Scotland and Church of England (1639) signed a covenant called the Solemn League and Covenant (see the 5th Commandment), so to be honorable and fervently work to reform the Church of England and Ireland and strengthen the reformed Church of Scotland in doctrine, worship, and church government. It is true that Providential preservation of the Scriptures, form of church government, prescribed worship, marriage, divorce, desertion and remarriage, along with some additional doctrines in the Westminster Confession are not reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith; but they are important and definite supporting doctrines of the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith. Yet, they will be preached by every knowledgeable faithful Westminster Presbyterian minister and defended by every faithful Westminster Presbyterian church officer. Also every God-fearing repentant believer will respectfully hearing sermons from the heads of doctrine in the Larger Catechism and rooted in Scripture to be taught in the whole counsel of God (Prov. 15:28; Acts 17:11; 20:26-27); but let serious reformers take note and remember, until basic baptized adherents are taught the reformed evangelical fundamentals of the faith, drawn unto effectual calling, with Jesus Christ as Prophet, Priest and King, they will not listen with ears to be sanctified in the truth (Jn. 17:17). Instead, they will be ‘dull of hearing’ (Matt. 13;15; Heb. 5:11-14; Lk. 8:8-11; II Tim. 3:1-7; Heb. 5:11-14).

Some readers may try to cite English Presbyterian Thomas Watson (1693) to have some differences with English Presbyterian Thomas Vincent (1674) on the Shorter Catechism. Whilst they had different writing styles and format, they taught the same Shorter Catechism in its legislative intent meaning, even with reference to saving faith in Jesus Christ. Regardless of the revision work on Thomas Watson’s catechetical discourses (Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity, 1692), with editing after his death (1689) and again in 1965, Thomas Watson taught that Jesus Christ was to be received in biblical saving faith, as Prophet, Priest and King (see SCQA 86); and he endorsed Thomas Vincent’s, The Shorter Catechism, Explained from Scripture, An Epistle to the Reader, 1674).

Contrary to ignorant and terrible misunderstandings about the reformed evangelical Westminster Presbyterians in the Church of Scotland, the protest and dissents during the occupation of Scotland by the English sectarian General Oliver Cromwell (1650-1660), then under King Charles II (1662-1668), and then the Settlement of 1689 were first and foremost the following: that the Shorter Catechism was removed from intended uniformity to be used in the fencing of the Lord’s table and the faithful catechetical preaching of the heads of doctrine by the Larger Catechism were removed as the intended uniformity unto total subscription. The end result was that sectarians were invited into the Lord’s Supper and elected to be church officers in congregations gradually throughout the whole church. Thereby, the congregations would be subject to the same gospel moral declension as in congregations of Corinth and Galatia, preparing for further church splits in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Finally, genuine reformed evangelical Baptists in truth confessing the Reformed Baptist Catechism (1689, 1693) and genuine reformed evangelical Congregational-Independents, confessing the Reformed Baptist Catechism or the Shorter Catechism, would be considered “lovely Christians” and can benefit from a national Westminster Presbyterian church; but they cannot usher in national reformation. Only reformed evangelical Westminster Presbyterian church officers can lead and guide toward national reformation as taught in the whole Westminster Standards. Therefore, this minister of the gospel invites all reformed evangelicals and those striving to be with confession of Jesus Christ, as Prophet, Priest, and King to read this explanation of the reformed evangelical Westminster Shorter Catechism; and reformed Baptists to compare and contrast with their reformed Baptist catechism (1689, 1693).

The End.