Vou. XXII ALLEGHENY, PA., JUNE 15, 1901 No. 12 VIEWS FROM THE WATCH TOWER PRESBYTERIAN CREED REVISION The General Assembly of the Church of the Presbyterians, whose names are wiitten on earth (compare Heb. 12:23), has again been forced to discuss its creed in response to the general clamor of its people, who want to be told whether or not they still beheve it; or whether or not they may do just a little thinking for themselves. When the Assembly convened in Philadelphia, Pa., its committee reported:—A majority favoring some sort of an amendment or revision, and a minority favoring no revision, no change. The Assembly sided with the majority, and the discussion pro and con showed considerable warmth at times. Rev. D. S. Kennedy was the bravest of the brave in defending the creed which has so nauseated the tender-hearted, and so severely tried their faith’s unreason. He repudiated the statement that “ministers of the Gospel and elders in the church do not believe the oath of ordination they have taken.” He challenged any man on the floor to dispute his statement! And, strange (2?) to say, not one of the Assembly was willing to sacrifice himself by admitting himself to be a violator of his conscience and of his oath of consecration ;—by admitting that he neither believed the Westminster Confession, nor taught it. Judge J. K. Ewing took the same stand against all 1evision, saying :— “J protest against changing the Confession for the sake of popularity; tor as the church goes up in popularity. it usually goes down in spirituality. When the church flirts with this idea it falls into a ditch. You will never convert the world by popularizing the doctrine of the church. The Confession in its present form is popular enough for me.” But the majority, without, perhaps, being more conscientious, were less brave. if their consciences could have a little relief they wanted it. It was at this time, after several days of discussion, that Rev. Moffat, D. D., brought order out of confusion, and a rainbow in the Assembly’s clouds by some skillful word-strategy. He is reported to have said:— “What is this whole matter about? Is it revision? There is no revision before this Assembly. I don’t know what I am, a revisionist, or an anti-revisionist, for revision is not before us at all. This majority report only asks for more time and authority. Probably revision will be before us neat year; if it is, then the speech Dr. Kennedy made this morning will be right in place. How do these men know that a new creed will be the outcome of the adoption of the majority report? I admire their imagination, but I do not admire their exegetical ability. “I will guarantee that if there is any heresy in the report they bring in next year, the Assembly of 1902 will burn the whole document. This new creed proposed is to sustain the same relation to the Confession of Faith that the Shorter Catechism sustains to the Larger Catechism. The Westminster divines maintained that the Shorter Catechism was better suited to the wants of the common people than the larger one, then why be afraid to go on with this subject? The whole thing is under proper ecclesiastical supervision. The presbyteries asked for it. The last Assembly discussed it and appointed the committee and they have done their work well. I am sorry to see men belittle this work. One hundred and fifty presbyteries asked for some change. What would be your attitude if that number asked for the dismissal of the whole subject? “T claim it is not wise for this Assembly to disregard the voice of the church in this matter, and we should hesitate long before we say to them, Be still, Preachers who come to the General Assembly ought to practice what they preach. I have s\mpathy with the common people, and they are demanding some changes. Theologians can get along with the creed as it 1s; but the common people cannot, and I only want our belief stated so they can understand it, and when it is thus stated, and not till then, will all denominations say: ‘Why, they believe just what we do!’ “The saddest declaration I have ever heard was: ‘We simply cannot tell the world what we believe.’ This is not true. Adopt the majority report and we will then get a statement of what we believe, and all the world will believe it.’ “Tremendous applause followed the address.” The dis-ease affecting Presbyterianism, the Assembly would have us think a very peculiar one. They wish their Christian neighbors and friends to think that the Westminster Confession of Faith, framed shortly after emergence from the super (195-196) stitions of the “dark ages,” is an infallible statement of the truth, and therefore unalterable, unchangeable. Neither their own nor other hands must shatter their idol. Neither will they admit that it has an ugly and a repulsive look, and if not broken up and burned should at least be veiled from public view. ‘The resolution which now comforts and rejoices the Assembly and the large and intelligent, but blindly stubborn body of Presbyterians, is that their idol shall not be harmed, nor covered nor veiled;—it will be merely set back in the rear, so as not to be so conspicuous to outsiders and new beginners, and it will be represented at the front door by a more lovable-looking, a more angelic idol. In other words, Doctor Moffat tells the world and the mass of Presbyterians and the vast majority of the Assembly, that the Westminster Confession is so “deep” that few but himself can really understand and interpret it. He assures them that what appears to them to be black is really the purest of white, and that men of sufficient ability to demonstrate this to the Christian world, have been put upon the committee which is to report such a modernized explanation of the Westminster Confession. No wonder there was applause at such a suggestion;—that the idol need not be destroyed nor even maimed. Moreover, it was not merely the idol that they cared for, but more especially themselves, the priests of that idol; for whatever would discredit it, would discredit them. If it were proven faulty, fallible, the same would be true of them; for had they not sworn themselves and each other to the reliability of this idcl? And if they now were to admit error, falsehood, misrepresentation of the divine character and Word and plan, who would receive their testimony as infallible hereafter? Would there not be great danger that some of the best of the “sheep” would cease to follow traditions of men and seek instead the voice of the Good Shepherd Jesus and his leading into the green pastures and by the still waters of his Word? Later Dr. Moffat put his thought into the following words which were adopted as a part of the Assembly’s instructions to its committee, which has a year in which to fix up the substitute idol and see how lovely it can be made, and yet bear some faint traces ot family likeness to its still-to-live parent, the Westminster Confession, to which it will bear the relationship of representative, but not of substitute. The resolution follows :— “We recommend that this committee be instructed to pre pare and submit to the next General Assembly for such disposition as may be judged to be wise, a brief statement of the reformed faith, in untechnical terms, the said statement to be prepared with a view to its being employed to give information and a better understanding of our doctrinal beliefs, and not with a view to its becoming a substitute or an alternative of our Confession of Faith.” FAMISHING FOR THE BREAD OF LIFE Some who are awaking are crying out for bread—the bread of truth, instead of the stones of error offered by the various creeds, The Rev. T. Chalmers veiced the sentiments of an increasing number, when, not long since, he said:— “We cannot resist the inevitable. The creed of Calvinism is like a coat which is becoming too small for the rapid growth of human thought. With every movement of the arms it will be sure to rip somewhere, unless we refrain from all vigorous exercise. We do not want any coat which binds us so tightly that we cannot act with freedom. It is folly to attempt to keep pace with the ripping of the coat by a little sewing here and there. It is too small, and no amount of sewing and patching will help it any. It may have a good deal of good material which may be kept and still used, but the system of Calvinism, as a system, has done its service for humanity. We don’t want systems any more. We want liberty and truth and love and righteousness. We want more of Christ and less of creed. We want still to grow—to grow until we come into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God unto the perfect man, unto the fulness of the measure of the stature of Christ.” RELIGIOUS FEDERATIONS AND TRUSTS Long ago we pointed out that combination would be the order of the churches and the world for the new century ;— that these will be the greut giants of the end of this age, and make necessary the symbolic fire which will destroy present systems, corresponding to the giants, whose wisdom and super-ability and tyranny preceeded the literal destruc [2830]
This website uses cookies to improve the website and your experience. By continuing to browse this website, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. If you require further information or do not wish to accept cookies when using this website, please visit our Privacy PolicyTerms of Use.