STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM

July 24: Van Horn on WSC Q. 93

by archivist

by Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn

Q. 93. What are the sacraments of the New Testament?

A. The sacraments of the New Testament are, baptism and the Lord’s supper.

Scripture References: Matt. 28:19; Matt. 26:26-28; Gen. 17:24-27; Ex. 12:22-27.

Questions:

1. What were the sacraments of the Old Testament?

There were two sacraments under the Old Testament: circumcision and the passover.

2. When was circumcision instituted and what was the spiritual meaning?

It was instituted in the ninety-ninth year of Abraham’s life. At that time he, and all the men of his house were circumcised. The spiritual meaning of circumcision is that it signified the impurity and corruption of nature, the necessity of regeneration; and of being implanted in Christ in order to partake of the benefits of His mediation, together with a solemn engagement to be the Lord’s.

3. What was the passover and when was it instituted?

The passover was instituted at the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt. It was called the passover because the angel passed over the houses of the Israelites on whose houses the blood of the passover-lamb was stricken upon the lintels and side posts of their doors.

4. What are the sacraments of the New Testament?

The sacraments of the New Testament are baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

5. How do the sacraments of the New Testament take the place of those of the Old Testament?

Baptism takes the place of circumcision and the Lord’s Supper takes the place of the passover.

6. What are the sacraments according to the Roman Catholic church? The Roman Catholic church states there are seven sacraments. In addition to baptism and the Lord’s supper they add confirmation, penance, ordination, marriage, and extreme unction.

BADGES OF MEMBERSHIP

There are many in the church of today who can not understand why certain believers insist on putting emphasis on Baptism and the Lord’s supper. You can hear the cry of the critics over and over again: “We don’t like to hear the term ‘sacrament’ for it sounds too much like the Roman Catholic church.” Or, “We do not feel that we should attach any importance to the sacraments for Christ is the important one!” Needless to say, these critics of the sacraments are not too well advised in the Westminster Standards for the Standards put a great emphasis on the sacraments.

The true Church, which has been formed by God into outward visible communities, must have certain divinely-appointed badges of membership. These badges of membership are the sacraments. These badges serve to mark the true church, they distinguish the true church. This is one reason why we must emphasize the sacraments.

The second reason, in many ways, is more important than the one just mentioned. We are taught in the Westminster Standards that the Church and the kingdom of God rest upon a covenant (Chapter 7). We have learned that a covenant is simply a mutual understanding or agreement, and the covenant imposed by a superior upon an inferior is simply a conditional promise. This is God’s way of dealing with His people. He commands them, He promises them and He threatens them. This is all accomplished in the covenant. The sacraments play an important part in all this in that the sacraments are the visible seals by which the covenant is ratified end its benefits symbolized to all who accept its terms.

What does all this mean to the believer? It means that he must be faithful in his use of these sacraments. He must recognize that they are ordained of God to be means of grace—not the only means—but divinely-appointed means. He must know that his use of these means is an obligation placed on him oy God. He must perceive that the sacraments are effective testimonies of the central truths of the Gospel.

May God help us to make use of these “Badges of Membership” and wear them in a faithful way, all to the glory of God.

The Shield and Sword, Inc.
Dedicated to instruction in the Westminster Standards for use as a bulletin insert or other methods of distribution in Presbyterian churches.
Rev. Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor
Vol. 6, No. 10 (October 1967)

archivist | July 24, 2016 at 12:05 am | Categories: July 2016 | URL: http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/?p=16327
Comment    

July 23: Presbyterianism and Civil Liberty

by David_W_Hall

“The Shorter Catechism fought through successfully the Revolutionary war.”—A.A. Hodge.

Our guest author for the Election Day Sermon series, Dr. David Hall, will return with his next post on August 13th. Today’s post comes from the pen of the Rev. Dr. W.W. (Walter William) Moore [1857-1926], who, after a few brief pastorates, served first as professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary in Richmond, Virginia, 1886-1915 and then as president of that same institution from 1904 until his death in 1926. The following article comes from THE NORTH CAROLINA PRESBYTERIAN, vol. 40, no. 2 (13 January 1898): 2.

PRESBYTERIANISM AND CIVIL LIBERTY.
by Rev. W.W. Moore, D.D. (Walter William Moore, 1857-1926)

Civil liberty and religious liberty go hand in hand. As men settle the question of church power, so they are likely to settle the question of civil power. If they rest church power in the clergy they are likely to rest civil power in kings and nobles. Hence the remark of Lord Bacon that “Discipline by bishops is fittest for monarchy of all others.” If, on the other hand, men rest church power in the people, in the church itself, as Presbyterians do, then they will hold that civil power also rests in the people, and that all civil rulers are the servants of the people. So Dr. Paxton has said, “If there is liberty in the church there will be liberty in the State; if there is no bishop in the church there will be no tyrant on the throne.”

Hence it is that modern tyrants have with one consent recognized that Presbyterianism was their natural enemy and have hated and feared it accordingly. Charles II. pronounced Calvinism a religion not fit for a gentleman. Charles I. said: “The doctrine (of the Presbyterians) is anti-monarchical,” and he added that “there was not a wiser man since Solomon than he who said, ‘No Bishop, no King.'” James I., born and reared a Scot, spake what he knew when he said at the Hampton Court Conference, “Ye are aiming at a Scots Presbytery, which agrees with monarchy as well as God and the devil.” History has demonstrated that the views thus expressed by the Stuart kings were absolutely correct. By its doctrine of personal liberty Presbyterianism has emphasized the worth of the individual. By its republican polity it has rested the power of government in the people, and administered it through representatives of the people chosen by the people. And, as a natural consequence, it has in every age been the chief educator of the people in the principles of civil liberty, and has in every land reared the noblest champions of human freedom. And so the Westminster Review, which is certainly no friend of our faith, says: “Calvin sowed the seeds of liberty in Europe,” and again, emphatically, “Calvinism saved Europe.” Castelar, the eloquent Spaniard, says: “The Anglo-Saxon democracy is the product of a severe theology,” learned in the cities of Switzerland and Holland, “and it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral, most enlightened and richest portion of the human race.”

Macaulay has shown that the great revolution of 1688, which gave liberty to England, was in a great measure due to the heroism of the Presbyterians of Scotland, who at Drumclog contended for Christ’s Crown and Covenant against the dragoons of Claverhouse, whose blood crimsoned the heather at Bothwell Bridge and Ayrsmoss, and whose brethren in Ireland resisted to the death the army of King James at Derry. Ranke, the great historian of Germany, says: “John Calvin was virtually the founder of America.”

Bancroft, our own historian, says: “We are proud of the free States that fringe the Atlantic. The Pilgrims of Plymouth were Calvinists; the best influence in South Carolina came from the Calvinists of France. William Penn was the disciple of the Huguenots; the ships from Holland that first brought colonists to Manhattan were filled with Calvinists. He that will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.” Rufus Choate says: “I ascribe to Geneva an influence that has changed the history of the world. I trace to it the opening of another era of liberty; the republican constitution framed in the cabin of the Mayflower, the divinity of Jonathan Edwards, the battle of Bunker Hill, and the independence of America.”

These, be it remembered, are all disinterested testimonies by men who are not themselves Presbyterians. One of them, Bancroft, adds this further statement of fact: “The first voice publicly raised in America to dissolve all connection with Great Britain came, not from the Puritans of New England, not from the Dutch of New York, not from the planters of Virginia, but from the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina.” The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, in May 1775, was the work of Presbyterians exclusively, nine of its signers being Presbyterian elders and one a Presbyterian minister. Fourteen months after that memorable action, when, in Philadelphia, the Colonial Congress was hesitating to pass the Declaration of National Independence, it was the eloquence of an illustrious Presbyterian that swept the waverers to a decision, John Witherspoon, the president of Princeton, the only minister of any denomination who signed that immortal document.

Later still, in one of the darkest hours of the Revolution, Washington, himself connected with the Episcopal Church, said that should all his plans be crushed, he would plant his standard on the Blue Ridge, and rallying round him the Scotch-Irish of the Valley, make a final stand for freedom on the Virginia frontier. To this sterling strain, it has been said, belongs the unique distinction of being the only race in America that never produced a Tory. Calvinism, in fact, was the backbone of the Revolution. “While the Quakers were non-combatants, and stood aloof from the conflict; while the Episcopalians, as a rule, were against the Colonies and in favor of the crown; while the Methodists followed the mother Church and imitated John Wesley himself in their denunciation of the revolting Americans, the Congregational ministers of New England and the Presbyterian ministers from Long Island to Georgia gave to the cause of the Colonies all that they could give of the sanction of religion.”

As for Presbyterian elders and laymen, when we remember the remark of George Alfred Townsend, ‘When I want to find the grave of an officer in the Revolutionary Army, I go to a Presbyterian graveyard and there I find it;” when we remember that nearly all the officers in command at King’s Mountain, the most successful battle save one that was ever fought by American arms, were Presbyterian elders and that their troops were mustered from Presbyterian settlements; when we remember that General Morgan and General Pickens, who turned the whole tide of the war at the Cowpens, were Presbyterian elders; when we remember that after his surrender at Saratoga, Burgoyne said to Morgan concerning his Scotch-Irish riflemen, “Sir, you have the finest regiment in the world;” when we remember that Generals Moultrie, Sullivan, Sumter, Stark, Knox, Routledge, Wayne, and scores of other officers, as well as thousands of the Revolutionary rank and file, were of the same sturdy stock, it is hardly too much to say with Dr. Archibald Hodge that “The Shorter Catechism fought through successfully the Revolutionary war.”

 
David_W_Hall | July 23, 2016 at 12:05 am | Categories: July 2016 | URL: http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/?p=15362
Comment    

When Scotland was on Fire

When Scotland was on Fire

In this dear land in days of yore,
God moved in mighty power;
His Word He blessed and souls found rest,
When Scotland was on fire.
And in those days of yesteryear,
Men loved the Word of God;
They preached it true and lived it too,
When Scotland was on fire.

Once more Lord, once more Lord;
As in the days of yore;
On this dear land, Thy Spirit pour,
Set Scotland now on fire.

There were Welsh and Peden, Craig and Knox;
McCheyne and Rutherford;
Bonar and Wishart, Livingston,
These loved the Word of God,
And many others of renown,
For Christ their lives laid down;
When Scotland was on fire for God,
When Scotland was on fire.

In this dear land in days of yore,
Men honoured Christ the Lord;
They followed him, come loss or gain,
When Scotland was on fire.
In castle grand and but’n ben,
God had the chiefest place,
Nor stake nor rack could hold them back,
When Scotland was on fire.

Once more, once more, once more Oh Lord,
On this dear land of heather and glens
And lochs and hills,
Set Scotland now on fire.

July 20: The Value of the Larger Catechism

by archivist

Blow the Dust Off  that Larger Catechism
by Rev. David T. Myers

wlc1939On this date in 1648, July 20th,  the Westminster Larger Catechism was approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in Edinburgh, Scotland. Yet to countless Presbyterians today, the Larger Catechism is a forgotten creed in our churches.  Yet it should not be.

In the words of Professor W. Robert Godfrey, it is “a mine of fine gold theologically, historically, and spiritually.” (pg ix in his “Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism.”)  It was always intended to be for the more mature Christians in the historic Christian faith, which certainly includes teaching and ruling elders, deacons, adult leaders in Christian education in the local church, and anyone else who may serve as a spiritual leader in the Church, or desire to be.

The value of the Larger Catechism, as outlined by W. Robert Godfrey in his introduction to the Catechism, is evidenced by its outstanding summaries of Biblical doctrine. I think of Question No. 77 which asks of the difference between justification and sanctification.  In an examination by a Presbytery committee, this author was once asked the difference between justification and sanctification by a ruling elder! By God’s good grace, I had reviewed that answer just prior to the examination, and was enabled to answer it succinctly. Could you, the reader, relate its differences between these two theological doctrines? Larger Catechism Q. 77 informs you of the answer.

The value of the Larger Catechism is also found in that some of its answers are superior even to the formulations of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The late John Murray believed this was the case with Q&A 30 – 32 on the Covenant of Grace, as being superior to Chapter 7, section 3 of the Confession. Too, the imputation of the guilt of Adam’s sin, as explained in L.C. 22 was superior to what WCF 6:3 says, the late Westminster Seminary professor believed.  We cannot afford to be ignorant of the fulness of the Larger Catechism.

Third, the exposition of the Ten Commandments is especially rich spiritually. It is true that “excessive elaboration” or overly-minute examinations of that which is commanded and forbidden of Exodus 20, tends to be a drag to countless readers and students. Yet Dr. Godfrey concludes “the Larger Catechism’s exposition of the law is in fact a useful basis for meditation and self-examination as it opens up the meaning of the commandments for the benefit of the believer who seeks to lead a godly life.” (pg. xiii)  Should that not be the goal for all growing believers?

Next, the value of the Larger Catechism is found in its presentation of the doctrine of the church, as developed by the author of this introduction. He correctly points out that such a presentation is entirely absent from the Shorter Catechism, except in an inference to the persons of baptism.

And last, the value of this Larger Catechism, according to Dr. Godfrey, is that it is a full, balanced, edifying summary of the Christian faith, a worthy aid as we grow in a knowledge of God’s truth.

Words to Live By:
I can do no less than recommend the Commentary on the Westminster Larger Catechism, as authored by Johannes G. Vos, edited by G. I. Williamson, and published by Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing House. It has been my constant companion  in my pastoral and personal devotions.

Yes, the Larger Catechism  has language problems in that it is fixed in sixteenth century language. Certainly, we have had no problem in translating inspired Holy Scripture into the language of the  twentieth century, with versions  such as the New American Standard Bible. Why isn’t there a movement to do the same with the language of the Westminster Confessional Standards?  Fellow elders, we need overtures to our respective presbyteries and General Assemblies to bring the Westminster Confession Standards up-to-date in their language!

My plea to our readers is to rediscover the Larger Catechism of  the Westminster Standards.  You will find it to be all that Professor Godfrey says it is.  And it will be to you, as a mature Christian, a worthy help as you worship and serve the Lord God from  day to day.  For our teaching elders, the Larger Catechism will be a help as you instruct the people of God in the Reformed Faith from Lord’s Day to Lord’s Day.

westminsterabbey1647

 

archivist | July 20, 2016 at 12:05 am | Categories: July 2016 | URL: http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/?p=16014
Comment

July 17: Van Horn on WSC Q. 92 STUDIES IN THE WESTMINSTER SHORTER CATECHISM

by archivist

 

A. A sacrament is an holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

Scripture References: Gen. 17:7, 10. Exodus 12. I Cor. 16:23,26.

Questions:

1. Where did we obtain the word “sacrament”?

The word “sacrament” is a theological ‘Word, not a biblical word. It is of Latin origin and was used by the Romans to signify their military oath. The soldiers, in taking this oath, promised that they would not forsake the standard of their leader.

2. How is the word “sacrament” used by the church today?

Rightly used, it means something that is sacred, it is a solemn engagement to be the Lord’s.

3. Why do we call a sacrament a “holy ordinance”?

It is called a “holy ordinance” because it has been appointed for holy reasons.

4. Is it necessary that a sacrament be “instituted by Christ”?

Our Larger Catechism uses the words “instituted by Christ in Hili Church” and our Confession states “immediately instituted by God” and Paul expresses the necessity by his words in I Cor. 11:23 – “For I have received of the Lord….”

5. What are the two parts to a sacrament?

The two parts to a sacrament are:
(1) The outward or sensible signs;
(2) The inward grace, the spiritual part.

6. How can we bring these two parts together?

We can bring them together by recognizing that the inward graces are represented by the outward signs.

7. Why are the benefits only applied to believers?

They are applied to believers for it is only believers who have the true faith that enables them to discern and apply the spiritual grace involved. It is only the believer who has a real, effectual application of Christ.

COVENANT BREAKING

As we have studied further in the area of the sacraments, we are now more than we were before our study. We have learned how the sacraments are effectual to salvation and we have learned what a sacrament is and its two parts. We will learn more as we go on in our study of the individual sacraments. The question we have before us now is: Dare we neglect the partaking of the sacraments?

This question, in the eyes of most members of the church, would be one to which they would certainly have the right answer. The problem is that to so many members of the church the answer is purely academic. It is academic and proven to be such by the actions of those same members. In short, they are covenant-breakers!

Too many times we fall to realize that neglect of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper make us covenant-breakers. Under the Old Testament it is very plain that neglect of the signs and seals of the covenant was pronounced as covenant-breaking by the Almighty, Sovereign God. And yet we fall so many times to realize that the neglect of the New Testament equivalents must be pronounced as covenant-breaking by the same God.

Time and time again ministers are faced with the problem of parents who, by their very membership in a church that teaches and practices infant baptism, are neglectful in the important area of presenting their children for baptism. The greater problem though is the church member who absents himself from the Lord’s Supper time and time again. There does not seem to be any attitude of obligation on the part of the believer in this regard.

Charles Hodge in his book The Way of Life said that “the public confession of Christ is an indispensable condition of discipleship; that this confession must be made by attending on the ordinances which he has appointed; that these ordinances are not only the signs and seals of spiritual blessings, but are made, by the Holy Spirit, to the believer, effectual means of grace; that attendance upon them is, therefore, an indispensable duty …” May God keep us faithful in this regard. May we never be considered as covenant-breakers before Him!

Published by The SHIELD and SWORD, INC.
Dedicated to instruction in the Westminster Standards for use as a bulletin insert or other methods of distribution in Presbyterian churches.
Leonard T. Van Horn, Editor.
Vol. 6, No. 9 (September, 1967)

archivist | July 17, 2016 at 12:05 am | Categories: July 2017 | URL: http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/?p=16324
Comment

July 16: The Ideal of the True Deacon

by David_W_Hall

Our regularly scheduled guest author, Dr. David Hall, is taking a vacation break from his Election Day Series and will return with his next article on August 13th. Until then, I would like to take these Saturdays to share with our readers selected readings on the office of the deacon, and today’s post comes from the pen of  the Rev. Dr. Edward Mack.

Edward Mack [1868-1951], was educated at Davidson College (BA; MA; LLD), the University of Cincinnati (Ph.D.), and Princeton Theological Seminary. Dr. Mack served churches in St. Louis, MO; Norfolk, VA; and Shreveport, LA before serving as professor of Old Testament languages at Lane Theological Seminary, 1904-15, and then in a similar post at Union Theological Seminary, Richmond, VA, 1915-1939. It was during those latter years at Union Seminary that he wrote his booklet on the office of the deacon, a small work which was well received and which went through six editions.

The Presbyterian Church in America based its Book of Church Order on that of the denomination they left. They saw no need to draft an entirely new Book when the principles embedded in the old Book had served the Church well for over one hundred years. So it is not surprising that many of the paragraphs in the PCA’s Book echo those of the PCUS Book. This is the case with our Chapter 9 on the Office of the Deacon, which almost word for word remains the same as that of the 1922 PCUS revision of their chapter on the deacon. With that background, let’s turn to chapter 5 of Dr. Mack’s booklet:—

 

The Deacon Himself

“To the office of Deacon, which is spiritual in nature, should be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.”
–PCUS Form of Government, Chap. IV, Section IV, Paragraph 48.

[and for comparision, here is the PCA’s paragraph:
“To the office of deacon, which is spiritual in nature, shall be chosen men of spiritual character, honest repute, exemplary lives, brotherly spirit, warm sympathies, and sound judgment.”
–PCA Form of Government, Chapter 9, paragraph 3.]

Having considered the importance and duties of this office, finding that in its enlarged field it is now a renewed, but not a new, office in the Church; that it has been lifted from disparagement and partial disuse into special honor and large opportunity; that while many churces hitherto have magnified the office, henceforth all are to magnify it, and use it to attain glorious ends, this paragraph brings us to the heart of the discussion. The key to the situation is the man himself. The assurance of the success of the office is the peculiar fitness of the man for his high office. That fitness, in general, is the quality which fits all officers in the Church for their several offices, and every individual member to serve Christ in his part and place. That fundamental characteristic is spirituality; men of the Spirit for an office which takes the temporal and external service of the Church, and translates it ito spiritual service.

 

. . . We must rid ourselves of the notion that the Deacon is somewhat of a secular personage in the Church, preferably an able man of affairs, not sufficiently spiritual to be an Elder, and yet too useful not to be used in some lower and unspiritual service. A modern Gibeonite to hew wood and draw water! Our Presbyterian Nethinim, neither priest nor Levite, far from the ministry, and not quite an Elder!

The well-chosen words of this paragraph [in our Book of Church Order] and Paul’s description of the true Deacon in his letter to Timothy dispel such an unworthy view. The Deacon should be consecrated to his Lord for his special service; he must live the life of prayer, even as must the Minister and the Elder. The difference in offices is not difference in presence and power of the Spirit, but in differing gifts for different services, all of which are spiritual and holy. “We who are many are one body in Christ, and severally members one of another, and having gifts differing according to the grace given unto us, whether deaconing, let us give ourselves to our deaconing, or he that ruleth, with diligence.” Of all offices, it is the one most necessarily to be committed to spirit-filled men, for the very reason that it has to do with material things andn duties, which must be transformed into means of spiritual service.

To this other qualifications are added, emphasizing uprightness, enthusiasm for the Gospel, and the warmth of a true Christian sympathy. Such qualities are the same in essence as those required in the words of institution in Acts vi : “men of good report, full of the Spirit, and of wisdom.” The Deacon’s life and character are a large part of the fulfillment of his office. A pure life, a great faith, a liberal heart, a flaming zeal are the qualities which rise to the ideal of the True Deacon.

 

Words to Live By:
Let me take this opportunity to encourage you to regularly prayer for the deacons in your church. You may not have thought to do something like that, but the deacons have a big job to do in the church, and when they are properly about their work, what they bring to the church will enrich everyone in the congregation [no pun intended]. We looked today at the deacon himself. I hope next week to bring you a closer look at the work of the deacon.

David_W_Hall | July 16, 2016 at 12:05 am | Categories: July 2016 | URL: http://www.thisday.pcahistory.org/?p=15360
Comment

This Day in Presbyterian History

July 15: Toward a Continuing Presbyterian Church

Time to Move for a New Church

The evidence was already in, in fact, it was well in.  All of the efforts of the conservatives in the Southern Presbyterian Church (Presbyterian Church U.S.) had failed to stop the tide of liberalism in that once great church.  So after the last General Assembly in 1971, something had to be done.

Gathering together in Atlanta, Georgia, on July 15, 1971, a group of conservative Presbyterians met to discuss the situation.  Realizing that some key elders were not present, they met two weeks later on July 30th at the Airport Hilton in Atlanta, Georgia. This was a meeting which was filled with talk to the heavenly Father as well as to those of like precious faith. They met all together and then in small groups.

By the morning of the next day, some statements were presented to the group.  They were as follows:  “A plan for the continuation of a Presbyterian Church loyal to Scripture and the Reformed faith: 1. To create a climate of opinion favorable to the continuation of conservative presbyteries and churches loyal to Scripture and the Reformed Faith, by promoting as strong an image as possible of such loyalty through actions taken by synods, presbyteries, and congregations. 2. To identify presbyteries and congregations willing to take such a stand.  And 3. To accept the inevitability of division in the PCUS and to move now toward a continuing body of congregations and presbyteries loyal to Scripture and the Westminster Standards.

This intent was breathed in prayer in, in the discussion towards it, and breathed out in prayer at the conclusion of it.  Men who had been through the battle to return the PCUS to the faith of the fathers wept at the very prospect of the future.  And when the vote came in favor of the three points, there were no high fives, or shouts of victory, but rather silence, as one of the men there said, a heavy silence of profound sadness.  They were not merely leaving the southern church.  The southern church had left them and their ordained convictions for a mess of liberal pottage, as Cain had done much earlier in his life.

A timetable was then worked out followed by the organization of a Steering Committee.  The plans were set in motion for a Continuing Church, which in time was named the Presbyterian Church in America. An Advisory Convention was held on August 7-9, 1973, laying the groundwork for the new denomination’s first General Assembly. To view the Minutes of that Convention, click here.

46. All Believers Welcome
It was resolved that the Continuing Presbyterian Church movement actively seek out and welcome into denominational fellowship kindred believers unable to worship God in the wholeness of Reformed theology.

47. All Races Welcome
It was resolved that the Continuing Presbyterian Church movement welcome fellow believers in Christ regardless of race.

48. Ecumenical Relations
It was resolved that the ecumenical connections of the Continuing Presbyterian Church be limited to distinctly evangelical organizations, and that no consideration be given to affiliation with the National Council of Churches or the World Council of Churches, now or at any time in the future.

Words to Live By:
Thank God for men and women with a firm conviction of the historic Christian faith.  Praise God for Christian leaders who refused to compromise the truth of the gospel for a mixture of theological error.  We need men and women like these in every age, for the Christian church to march on and be the appointed means to bring the gospel to every creature.  Be a part of your local church if it is holding faithfully to the faith once delivered unto the saints.