In times of Reformation in Scotland, centuries ago, the Church of Christ declared and maintained its belief in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as the Word of God and given by inspiration of God. In addition to this, the then church accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1643, as setting forth the fundamental truths and doctrines of the Christian faith, clearly and firmly based on Holy Scripture. And this is what we affirm and maintain and defend as a branch of the Christian Church, since the Church’s separate existence from 1893.
The term “heresy” is employed principally in the sense of doctrinal departures from revealed truth or erroneous views. Heresy must then be judged to be heresy in the light of clearly revealed truths of the Word of God. And there are truths recorded which apply, for instance, to God’s nature and character, to Christ’s virgin birth, to the performance of miracles, to the death of Christ and its atoning character, and to the actual, physical resurrection of Christ, and to the state and nature of man as a sinner needing God’s full salvation in sovereign grace. And, of course, there are truths regarding man’s need of being “born again” of the Spirit of God, and His Judgment of the Great Day, and so on. And the doctrine of inspiration of Holy Scripture is bound up with all these fundamentals of the faith once delivered to the saints.
In reading through the Epistles especially, it is soon discovered that the Apostolic Church was confronted with heresy according to the definition we have given, although in certain cases where the word heresy is used there is a reference to “sects” who caused divisions in the Church; but these divisions undoubtedly originated with men rising up, who had departed from revealed truth as taught by the apostles, and who had embraced erroneous views. In particular, erroneous views, as judged to be such by the apostles, are called in one place, “damnable heresies,” and are said to have been brought in by “false teachers”; that is, professed teachers of truth, teaching false doctrine, as judged by the light of the doctrine of the Lord and of His apostles. These men are declared to be instrumental in causing ” . . . the way of truth to be evil spoken of.” (2nd Peter, Chap. 2). Again, the character and conduct of heretics are made known by the apostle Paul to Timothy in the following terms: “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having the conscience seared with a hot iron.” (1st Timothy, chap. 4).
Now any judgment we may pass upon our fellow-man is, after all, fallible; yet at the same time, the Lord Jesus taught his disciples that they could judge and know their fellow-men by their fruits: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” For instance, “The corrupt tree bringeth forth corrupt fruit.” And so Paul judges men to be heretics who departed from the revealed faith, embraced doctrines of devils and taught lies. And in these present times, all who believe in and adhere to the Word of God and “the doctrine of God,” may come to a reasonable view and opinion of the views and teaching of others who hold office and make a profession of the Christian faith, within the realm of the visible Christian Church, in our land.
There should be no difficulty for the intelligent believer in Christ Jesus, who is a lover of the Word of God, in judging a man when that man declares that he does not believe in a supernatural God, nor in the virgin birth of Christ, nor in the actual, physical resurrection of Christ. That man is guilty of heresy by the witness of the Word of God and Apostolic doctrine and teaching. Such a man is Rev. Dr Edmund Jones, who is minister of Queen’s Cross Congregation of the Church of Scotland, Aberdeen. We have already referred to his case in a former issue. It will not be denied by those who know the Church of Scotland intimately, that the rejection of the inspiration of all Scripture and disbelief as to many of the doctrines of Scripture, are widespread among the ministry and laymen. Yet, we know that there are those in the Church of Scotland who acknowledge the authority and truth of God’s Word and who can discern heresy when it raises its ugly head; but who can do little to deal with it as it ought to be dealt with.
In the case of Rev. Dr Edmund Jones, the committee appointed by Aberdeen Presbytery of his Church, to inquire into the charges of heresy made against him by Aberdeen University students and others in the press, submitted its Report to the above Presbytery on the 6th of February. This Report was given very fully in the Aberdeen daily paper, The Press and Journal, on the 8th February 1968.
In our opinion, the Report, which was unanimously approved by the Presbytery, deals with the case critically, but in an unsatisfactory manner.
What the Report does not do, is to use the term “heresy” in dealing with Dr Jones’s expressed views relative to the Christian faith. And thus there is no suggestion that he should be proceeded against by means of a Libel by the Presbytery. Therefore he retains his office as minister in the church; although, in our opinion, he promulgated false and unsound doctrines, at variance with the Holy Scriptures and the doctrines of The Westminster Confession of Faith. The committee acknowledges these to be the standards of their Church when it states: “The Church of Scotland held a supreme rule of faith, the Bible, and a subordinate standard, The Westminster Confession of Faith“; but it failed to judge Dr Jones’s views strictly and specifically by those professed standards. Otherwise it could not fail to raise the question of heresy in his case.
What the Committee did do, was to reprove Dr Jones. “The committee held that what was at issue in the articles (by Dr Jones) was the content and expression of the Christian faith.” Here the committee refer to the supreme and subordinate standards of their Church, as we note above. The rebuke given to Dr Jones is in the following terms: “By failing to distinguish traditional Christian views from absurdities held by no one, he has, by implication, parodied and brought into disrepute past Christian theology and the views of many of his contemporaries.” The use of the phrases “… traditional Christian views” and “… past Christian theology,” give more a hint where the committee and Presbytery stand as to the unchanging doctrine of God’s Word; while at the same time admitting that many of their contemporaries hold what they call “traditional” and “past” Christian theology.
Further, the Committee recommended to their Presbytery that, “The Presbytery, in Christian love, earnestly counsel Dr Jones to avoid hasty and sensational utterances, and, while remaining within the fellowship of his brethren and contributing to its upbuilding, to respect and value the experience and beliefs of others.” Here the Dr is given to understand what is required of him if he is to remain in the Church of Scotland ministry. He is not enjoined to believe and teach the doctrine of the Bible and the Westminster Confession of Faith; but to respect the beliefs of others; no doubt, those who believe the Bible and The Confession of Faith. This is a strange and difficult task for a heretic occupying the pulpit of a professed Christian Church. Here is compromise and division in relation to what ought to be clear cut fundamental issues as to what a man, holding the office of the Christian ministry, should believe and teach the people.
Some statements in the Report would lead one to conclude that the committee took the view — to a certain extent — that Dr Jones had been expressing the Christian “faith in other than traditional terms” to meet the problems that secularisation posed for understanding the Christian Faith; and not that he was expressing his own considered and heretical notions. This is unacceptable to us, inasmuch as Dr Jones has been charged in the press with expressing disbelief in the existence of a “supernatural” God and in the “virgin birth” of the Lord Jesus and in other fundamental truths of the Christian faith, clearly recorded in Holy Scripture. As far as we know, he has never denied these charges, which unmistakably involve heresy.
As to his views of God, Dr Jones discussed these in an article he wrote in The British Weekly of 7th December 1967. He avoids in his style of writing, using the expressions, “I do not believe — such and such: “I believe,” or “I accept” — such and such. For instance, he writes: “How can a minister maintain intellectual integrity and at the same time be under oath to toe a party-line?” And he quotes with apparent approbation the erroneous views of other authors in his discussion of the doctrine of God. In referring to the thinking of a young minister — Dr Jones says: “There are certain areas of belief which he may not question . . . which he is forbidden to investigate. Accordingly theology has become suspect as an honest search for truth, because it pre-fabricates some fundamental answers before it asks the questions.” By his way of thinking, there must be nothing sure, certain or established unchangeably in Holy Scripture and in the Christian Faith: all must be left “wide-open” for critical examination by the human intellect and be brought under the scrutiny of the wisdom of this world, which is foolishness with God.
Again in the article we are dealing with, Dr Jones quotes a prayer in the Anglican Book of Common Order, in which there are petitions to Almighty God as He who rules in providence — viz., “ . . . yet upon our true repentance Thou wilt send such weather that we may receive the fruits of the earth . . .” Dr Jones’s observations follow thus: “The underlying assumption was that there is a Supreme Being or Great Spirit out in the wings of the Universe exercising sovereign control over the Cosmos. It is this assumption that radical theologians reject. Such a Deity is only a religious marionette.” The radical theologians reject this assumption, says Dr Jones. And Dr Jones, in our view, also concludes that the terms of the aforesaid prayer contain a mere assumption which he also rejects. This is the man who is to be permitted to continue in the office of the Christian ministry in the Church of Scotland.
No wonder the editor of the British Weekly observes: “Unless the Church officially made it clear where it stood, the man in the pew and the man never in it were going to become completely confused as to what it believed.” We agree with this statement which is but one aspect of the whole matter relative to heresy. The question arises — Can heresy be recognised as such and be condemned in the Church of Scotland in the present attitude which prevails in that Church to the Word of God?
The following recommendation, among others, was made by the committee which reported to the Aberdeen Presbytery:—”The Presbytery ask the General Assembly to remit to the Panel on Doctrine consideration of the place of the Westminster Confession of Faith as the subordinate standard of the Church.” We await, the Lord willing, the outcome of debate and decision on this recommendation, with anxiety and apprehension. Albeit, the Most High is able to turn men back to belief in His holy Word and to love it and defend it against its enemies. His Holy Spirit of truth and power can accomplish this, in divine mercy to Scotland.
Heresy is more rife in our land than we realise. And those who dare to expose it are made like the divine Master, objects of bitter animus and criticism. As Jesus said to the Jews: “Ye go about to kill me, a man that has told you the truth.” And Paul wrote to men in his own day: “Am I become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” This self-same spirit resides in the hearts of men who have taken to do with the Christian religion and associated themselves with it; but who have found themselves out of harmony with its most precious truths, in our own day and age. Such would establish a spurious faith and gospel, which is not the Gospel of Christ and which is only a foundation of sand. But those who point to it as a spurious gospel are not to be tolerated.
But it shall we well with those who, by divine teaching, know the truth and abide in it. Let them be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus and seek a continual exercise of the spirit of thanksgiving to God for the wonderful gift of His Word, which is able to make sinners wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.