A Deplorable Debate
We received the following brief account of a debate in Glasgow University at the end of October, from a friend who was present: “I have just been at a debate in the University on ‘This house considers that the Bible has been the most pernicious influence in the history of man?’ A sad, sad affair. Neither side was very impressive as far as debating skill was concerned; and the Christians seemed only too ready to dissociate themselves from the Old Testament in favour of the New, and even to say that we are called to follow Christ, not the Bible! The motion was defeated, but rather narrowly so far as I could judge. Well, might one say, ‘Where is the Lord God of Elijah?'” No doubt the reference to Christians taking part in the debate, refers to those professing to debate from the Christian point of view. The attitude of such to the Old Testament and to the Bible reveals the superficial nature of their Christianity or the influence of modernistic teaching widespread in the professing Christian Church. This is what makes debate easy for the enemies of the Bible as the inspired Word of God, which is deplorable.
Dissent and Decline in the Roman Catholic Church
The day has gone when the Roman Catholic Church can point arrogantly to her professed unity and authority and to division and decline in the Protestant World. In October last, a World Synod of R.C. bishops was held during which recommendations were made for sweeping reforms in the employment of Papal power, a suggestion unthinkable with this Church not so many years ago. The Pope himself referred to a “lack of confidence in the Church as it is.” The Synod heard new requests that the Pope seek the advice of his bishops more often. Belgian Cardinal Leo Suenens went so far as to say one of the Pope’s recent decrees contained “some incorrect sentences from the doctrinal point of view.” This surely was a new and an amazing attitude to the Pope and a disclosure of the fiction of infallibility. We are not saying that the Pope claimed to speak infallibly when he made the above incorrect statements doctrinally in the Cardinal’s opinion. But why did he not assume the “gift” of infallibility and thus avoid criticism by an astute Cardinal? The answer is simple. The infallibility of the Pope on any occasion is a myth. Another Cardinal, one Jean Danielou, at this Synod, revealed the decline in his Church in the following ways: the number of priests had decreased tragically, faith among the younger generation had weakened and spiritual life and morals had deteriorated. And so we witness the disappearance in these days of the high pretensions and official claims of the R.C. Church. Another phase of dissent was the holding of an assembly of 200 dissident priests in Rome at the very same time as the World Synod of bishops was being held. These priests came from eight countries. At the end of their assembly, they accused the Vatican of terrorising its critics and condemned methods of terror used in their Church. These accusations were not made by informed and militant protestants, but by R.C. priests. We are not concluding by these movements that the Roman Catholic is turning in the direction of desirable reformation. These agitations are springing from modernistic Roman Catholic sources.
Baptist Congregation Withdraws from Baptist Union of Scotland
The Baptist minister at Inverness, Rev. J. Seaton, and his congregation have withdrawn from the Baptist Union of Scotland. Last October, the Union’s Centenary Assembly was held in Edinburgh, at which a move was made to withdraw the Union from the Scottish Churches Council, because the Council have invited Roman Catholic observers to their meetings. By a 2 to 1 majority the Baptist Union voted to remain a member of the Council. At this decision, Rev. J. Seaton and his congregation took their stand against compromise with the Roman Church and left the Baptist Union. In his congregational Magazine, Mr Seaton explains in detail his stand for the Word of God, against those who do not preach the Gospel of Christ and His grace. He discloses how he was treated critically by a Baptist Union Committee on being interviewed according to his denomination’s procedure, after his completion of three years in the Ministry. This period is a probationary period in the Baptist Union. Before this Committee he expressed his respect for Puritan writers and for Biblical and sound evangelical doctrine and that he was strongly opposed to conferring with Roman Catholic priests. Although all the other students of his year were approved by this Committee, they postponed a decision in his case until December, 1969. Apparently, in the interval, he has left the Baptist Union, his congregation supporting him in his stand for the truth of God and practice consistent thereto. This case casts a revealing light upon the state of matters religiously in the Baptist Union of Scotland. The protagonists for Church Union today can, in cases, manifest a truly bitter spirit towards those who oppose them.
Church of Scotland and Westminster Confession of Faith
In the “Glasgow Herald” of 28th October, 1969, this paper’s Churches Correspondent in his column, deals with the fact that Presbyteries all over the Church of Scotland will now be debating the value of the Westminster Confession of Faith and what place it should have in the doctrinal beliefs of the Church of Scotland today. The writer refers to the background history of this Confession of Faith in a brief paragraph and reminds us that the General Assembly’s Panel on Doctrine would like the Confession to be retained. He also appears to know that there are some conservative persons in the Church of Scotland “who find the Con-Confession’s Calvinist doctrine of election congenial and its rigid Sabbatarianism acceptable, and for them the Westminster Confession is still a valid expression of Presbyterian doctrine . . .” The writer says that the present review of the Confession “raises the whole question of whether the Church of Scotland believes that the Christian faith can be contained in and confined to any confession or set of propositions.” Ministers and people of The Church of Scotland who are interested in this vital subject must decide firstly their attitude to the Holy Scriptures, as we believe them to be the inspired Word of God; and then to examine carefully the doctrinal statements of the Confession in the clear light of Holy Scripture and prooftexts which are given with the Confession. But the “Glasgow Herald” correspondent delves into the question of what he calls “Christian freedom” and after quoting a German theologian, he avers, “If you oppose the freedom, you do not preserve the Church’s faith. You kill it.” Before people discuss Christian freedom, it would surely be essential to agree to what one’s Christian faith consists in as to truth and doctrine. But the writer offers the view that the time has come for Christians to recognise that differences of opinion are healthy and that the Confession is a barrier to freedom and a hindrance to open discussion. It is quite clear that opponents of the Westminster Confession of Faith are opposed to certain fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith which are clearly stated and confirmed in the Holy Scriptures and are systematically set forth in the Confession. The liberals in the Church of Scotland and elsewhere who wish to accept or reject what the Scriptures teach according to the judgment of their own wisdom, find such a document as the Confession an embarrassment. They do not wish to be bound to what the Word of God itself teaches. When the Westminster Confession is dispensed with and so to speak “thrown overboard”, what then comes to the forefront? It is, dissatisfaction with the Word of God, rejection of precious doctrines of grace and a professed Christian faith, which is no faith at all, but a foundation of sand for precious souls.