by Rev. J. A. T. van Dorp
(Continued from Page 87)
The Confessional Documents.
Therefore it is little wonder that the confessional documents of the Reformation era speak with the one voice: “there is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ: nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof: but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God.” (WCF on 25: 6). For hundreds of years there is no other voice heard except the scriptural voice of “a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” At least that was the voice of the Reformed Church.
The Futurist Interpretation.
The Church of Rome became so alarmed about the identification of the Antichrist by the reformers that a scheme was devised to divert the attention. The Jesuit Ribera thought up the idea of a future Antichrist. The credit for the futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation goes to the Roman Catholic Church. It had never been heard of until Ribera’s work saw the light of day. He lived in the early Reformation era when the standard Protestant interpretation was that the Pope is the Antichrist and that the Church of Rome was set forth in the 17th chapter of the book of Revelation under the emblem of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters. In defence of the Church of Rome the monk Ribera put forth his futurist interpretation of the book of Revelation. His scheme succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. From the 19th century onwards a class of Protestants who can best be referred to as neo-reformed, swallowed the Jesuit pill that lay waiting for them, and began to peddle the futurist doctrine that had been invented in the Church of Rome.
The Rev. Murray Capill in his article THE SPIRIT OF THE REFORMERS Lists a number of names as a “hall of fame”, which includes such men as Calvin, Luther, Knox, Cranmer, Latimer, Owen, Whitefield, Edwards, MacCheyne, Ryle, etc. None of these men held to the futurist view of the Antichrist. That interpretation did not commence to trickle into the weakened Protestant churches until the 19th century through the influence of people like Newman and other Romanists in the Church of England. Men like Calvin etc. were as is correctly observed “men of the word of God”. That is why they were “men of a conciliatory spirit”. “Calvin is well known for his concern for unity”. That was true of all of them. The Westminster Confession was actually drawn up for the purpose of creating unity. Mr Capill and other Reformed Church ministers know that very well. The ORDINANCE OF THE LORDS AND COMMONS assembled in Parliament, who called together the Westminster Divines, stated that “whereas it hath been declared and resolved by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, that the present Church government by archbishops, their chancellors, commissars, deans, and chapters, archdeacons, and other ecclesiastical officers depending upon the hierarchy, is evil, and justly offensive and burdensome to the kingdom, a great impediment of reformation and growth of religion, and very prejudicial to the state and government of this kingdom; and therefore they are resolved that the same shall be taken away, and that such a government shall be settled in the Church as may be most agreeable to God’s holy word, and most apt to procure and preserve the peace of the Church at home, and nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland, and other Reformed Churches abroad. . . .” Now you see this is an ordinance of the English Parliament who are actually acting under the Establishment Principle. That was a time of considerable spiritual understanding even amongst people that were in secular work. There was none of that Voluntary idea that it did not matter what religion one was of. These men were concerned about the unity of the church based on the word of God. They did not have the lowest common denominator idea of the 20th century ecumenical movement. After they had called the divines together at Westminster in the year 1643 they let them get on with their work without dictating to them what kind of Confession or what kind of Catechism they wanted to be produced. When these things are so, why do Churches in the 20th century mutilate the Confession of Faith and still claim to be reformed? Why do they quote these eminent men of the Reformation as if they are in full whole hearted agreement with them? The Rev. John Murray is quoted by Mr Capill as one who speaks of the divisions of Christendom as a great evil and therefore sees the need “to implore God’s grace and wisdom in remedying the evil, and to devise ways and means of healing those ruptures. . . .” This he says “is the true spirit of the Reformation.” If this is the true spirit of the Reformation then there is no doubt that Christians that profess to be Reformed must do something about it.
The regulative principle.
The first thing they must do is to return to the teachings of the Reformers who they quote so approvingly and restore the teachings of the Confession and the Catechisms to their rightful place. Then there will be a tremendous stride in the direction of scriptural unity. Those teachings include the principles of purity of worship or the Regulative Principle. The Reformers did not leave those matters an open question. The Church of the Reformation certainly did not legislate for the use of man-made hymns and the use of instrumental music in the worship of God. The Westminster divines dealt with these matters in connection with the 1st and 2nd commandment. Q104: “The duties required in the first commandment are, . . . being zealous for him; . . . being careful in all things to please him, and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; . . .” How does one know God is offended? Q108 tells us: “The duties required in the second commandment are, the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire, all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath instituted in his word; . . . as also the disapproving, detesting, opposing, all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.” Q109 is also very applicable: “The sins forbidden in the second commandment are, all devising, counselling, commanding, using, and any wise approving, any religious worship not instituted by God himself; tolerating a false religion; the making any representation of God, . . . corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, . . .” Q110 includes the following: “The reasons annexed to the second commandment . . . his fervent zeal for his own worship, and his revengeful indignation against all false worship, as being a spiritual whoredom; accounting the breakers of this commandment such as hate him, . . .”
John Calvin.
Have the admirers of John Calvin ever taken the trouble to read his commentary on the book of Psalms and particularly Ps. 33 and other psalms where mention is made of instrumental music? When I passed through Holland in 1971 my attention was drawn to an article in HET REFORMATORISCH DAGBLAD (Reformed Day Paper) in which Ds Hegger, the former Roman Catholic priest, after a visit to Scotland commented on the absence of instrumental music in public worship. He said that one might as well do without electric light. I wrote to him and pointed out that reasoning like that was absolutely unsatisfactory as light is not an element in worship but instrumental music is such an element. I enclosed with it an extract from John Calvin’s commentary on Ps. 33 that deals with instrumental music. Says Mr Calvin: “It is evident that the Psalmist here expresses the vehement and ardent affection which the faithful ought to have in praising God, when he enjoins musical instruments to be employed for this purpose. He would have nothing omitted by believers which tends to animate the minds and feelings of men in singing God’s praises. The name of God, no doubt, can, properly speaking, be celebrated only by the articulate voice; but it is not without reason that David adds to this those aids by which believers were wont to stimulate themselves the more to this exercise; especially considering that he was speaking to God’s ancient people. There is distinction, however, to be observed here, that we may not indiscriminately consider as applicable to ourselves, every thing which was formerly enjoined upon the Jews. I have no doubt that playing upon cymbals, touching the harp and the viol, and all that kind of music, which is so frequently mentioned in the Psalms, was a part of the education; that is to say, the puerile instruction of the law: I speak of the stated service of the temple.” I received a letter back from Ds Hegger in which he apologised for his criticism. It would be wise for all that want to be fully biblical and all that have a true concern for the unity of the Church to study INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC IN PUBLIC WORSHIP by John L. Girardeau, late Professor in Columbia Theological Seminary, South Carolina.
It is published by NEW COVENANT PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 116 West Hillcrest Avenue, Havertown, Pa.19083.
Unreformed practices.
I believe that the Reformed Church of New Zealand has not interfered with chapter 21 of the Confession of Faith which includes the following statement: “the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the holy Scripture.” Neither has she removed Q50 from the Shorter Catechism, the answer to which reads: “The second commandment requireth the receiving, observing, and keeping pure and entire all such religious worship and ordinances as God hath appointed in his word.” Why then does she sanction the widespread use of visible representations of Christ as teaching aids of the young? All the Reformers were very clear on this matter since the abuse was and is so widespread and with such dire consequences. Why also, does the Reformed Church of NZ not keep her distance from those that do not claim any attachment to reformed teaching but have discarded any semblance of it long ago? In the sixties the Presbyterian Church of NZ exonerated Professor Geering, although he denied the resurrection of Christ from the dead. In the eighties this denomination officially distanced herself from any statements in the Confession about the Antichrist. A truly reformed church is a protestant church, ie a protesting church. She does not join the enemies of the truth. She does not connive at error. Why then does the Reformed Church of NZ join in ecumenical gatherings? Why do her ministers attend ministers’ fraternals? The reformed, protestant and scriptural practice is: “come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.” It is not such an easy thing to take a separate stand and to go against the stream. The consolation is that it is the living fish that always swim against the stream. The dead fish just float along. It is much more attractive and appealing to the flesh to be popular and to be recognised. However Protestantism and Reformation is all about taking a separate stand. It is about following Christ and not man. It is about going through evil report and good report and through evil report much more often than through good report. Moses knew all about the reality of the burning bush, and yet it was not being consumed.
Nec Tamen Consumibatur.
The men listed by Rev. Murray Capill in his article SPIRIT OF THE REFORMERS knew all about this. Luther had to face the emperor and the Pope’s legate in Worms and he did not know whether he would go home and sleep in his own bed again or whether he would be fuel for the fire. Knox had to face the wrath of the queen and the Roman Catholic Church. Nineteen months he suffered as a galley slave.
Cranmer and Latimer were burnt at the stake. Latimer was first. He was burnt at the same time as Ridley. His famous last words were: “Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man: we shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” Cranmer was burnt a little later.
These people we can truly call reformed and protestant. Their profession was not just so much lip-service. They and their successors can be termed uncompromising and that is what the Christian Church ought to be. Their whole life was and is an expression of the spirit of the Reformation as summed up by the words BY GRACE ALONE, BY FAITH ALONE AND BY SCRIPTURE ALONE. As long as there are office-bearers that will only subscribe to an unmutilated Westminster Confession of Faith with the Larger and Shorter Catechism, we can say that the fire of the Reformation has not been extinguished. As Samuel Rutherford said: “It shall be well with the church; the bush shall burn and not consume.” It is significant that today we can see the reality of the vision that Moses had by the burning bush, over the five continents of the world: Nec Tamen Consumibatur.