Trinkets of the Whore

George Gillespie
(1613-1648)
The Popish Ceremonies (including Holy Days) are proved to be Idolatrous Because they are badges of Present Idolatry.

The following quote is take fromGillespie's A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies Obtruded on the Church of Scotland, published in 1637 when he was 24. Gillespie later served as a Scottish commissioner to the Westminster Assembly.

EPC 3.3, 181-197. That The Ceremonies Are Unlawful, Because They Sort Us With Idolaters, Being The Badges Of Present Idolatry Among The Papists.

Sect. 1
It follows according to the order which I have proposed, to show next that the ceremonies are idolatrous, participative. By communicating with idolaters in their rites and ceremonies, we ourselves become guilty of idolatry; even as Ahaz (2 Kings 16:10), was an idolater, eo ipso [for that very reason], that he took the pattern of an altar from idolators. Forasmuch, then, as kneeling before the consecrated bread, the sign of the cross, surplice, festival days, bishopping, bowing down to the altar, administration of the sacraments in private places, etc., are the wares of Rome, the baggage of Babylon, the trinkets of the whore, the badges of Popery, the ensigns of Christ's enemies, and the very trophies of Antichrist: we cannot conform, communicate and symbolize with the idolatrous Papists in the use of the same, without making ourselves idolaters by participation.

Shall the chaste spouse of Christ take upon her the ornaments of the whore? Shall the Israel of God symbolize with her who is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt? Shall the Lord's redeemed people wear the ensigns of their captivity? Shall the saints be seen with the mark of the beast? Shall the Christian church be like the Antichristian, the holy like the profane, religion like superstition, the temple of God like the synagogue of Satan? Our opposites are so far from being moved with these things, that both in pulpits and private places they used to plead for the ceremonies by this very argument, that we should not run so far away from Papists, but come as near them as we can. But for proof of that which we say, namely, that it is not lawful to symbolize with idolaters (and by consequence with Papists), or to be like them in their rites or ceremonies, we have more to allege than they can answer.
http://www.naphtali.com/GGhodays6.htm
http://www.naphtali.com/epcextrc.htm
http://www.apuritansmind.com/GeorgeGillespie/GeorgeGillespieMainPage.htm

Who Should Be Baptized?

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. [Col. 2:11-12 KJV]

Clear connection here (Col. 2:11-12) between circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. Paul is saying baptism is "circumcision in Christ."

Consider Romans 4:11 concerning Abraham:
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: [KJV]

Paul specifically says circumcision is a sign and seal of righteousness or justification by faith.

God commanded that circumcision, a sign and seal of justification by faith, be given to infant children of Abraham who were incapable of believing.

Abraham was a believer when he was circumcised, and therefore circumcision is a sign and seal of his justification by faith. The pattern in the book of Genesis is: First, the adult believer Abraham received circumcision, the sign and seal of justification by faith. Then the sign and seal was administered to his household.

The same pattern is seen in the book of Acts. First, there are adult believers; they receive the sign and seal of justification by faith, baptism; then this sign and seal is given to their households.

Baptists argue for an explicit New Testament command to baptize children of believers. God gave an explicit command in the Old Testament for the sign and seal of justification by faith to be administered to believers and their children. Without an explicit, specific New Testament reference to change that principle, how can we withhold the sign and seal of justification by faith from infant children of believers?

Christian parents, believing parents, have no more right or option to say, "Shall we have our children baptized?" than believing parents under the old covenant had a right to ask if their child should be circumcised. The New Testament does not speak explicitly, but points to the Old Testament where the Spirit has spoken sufficiently for our instruction.

The lack of an explicit question or instruction regarding the baptism of infant children in the New Testament indicates common agreement, background and understanding on this issue. What the Spirit had already said was sufficient.

Presbyterians do not speak of "New Testament Christianity" but "Whole Bible Christianity. We read the New Testament in the context of the Old.

[For the above argument, I am indebted to the late Donald A. Dunkerley– one time Baptist, mentor, fellow minister and friend– and a tract he wrote on Baptism, originally published by the Presbyterian Evangelistic Fellowship]

Where Does Revival Start?

Charles G. Finney (1792-1875), father of Revivalism, said on the opening page of his Lectures on Revivals in Religion: "Religion is the work of man."

J. H. Merle d’Aubigne (1794-1872) in the Reformation in England said:

"...to believe in the power of man in the work of regeneration is the great heresy of Rome, and from that error has come the ruin of the Church. Conversion proceeds from the grace of God alone, and the system which ascribes it partly to man and partly to God is worse than Pelagianism."

American Presbyterian, Princeton theologian, Charles Hodge (1797-1878) points out the same danger:

"No more soul-destroying doctrine could well be devised than the doctrine that sinners can regenerate themselves, and repent and believe just when they please. . . As it is a truth both of Scripture and of experience that the unrenewed man can do nothing of himself to secure his salvation, it is essential that he should be brought to a practical conviction of that truth. When thus convicted, and not before, he seeks help from the only source whence it can be obtained."

These three men were contemporaries. D’Aubigne and Hodge agree, but disagree with Finney. Everyone who speaks of the 'new birth' does not mean the same thing.

Finney is considered the hero of Evangelical Religion in America.

Whose religion is it?

Do we bring ourselves to God?

Are we regenerated (born again) because we believe?
OR
Do we believe because God regenerates us?

Ephesians 2:1-10 (KJV)
1And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; 2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: 3Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. 4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Fetching Tow

Fetching Tow: Lucy says I should explain what the term means. To fetch is to convey from one place to another, to go get and bring back. One who fetches is a ‘go-fer.’ Tow may be the material (flax or hemp) for spinning. One can spin ideas as well as fiber. Tow is also tinder for starting a fire. Isaiah 1:31 (KJV) speaks of God’s judgment, "And the strong shall be as tow, and the maker of it as a spark, and they shall both burn together, and none shall quench them." One may ‘fetch tow’ to start a fire of conviction, judgment, repentance, revival, reformation, conversation or debate. Luther was ‘fetching tow,’ providing tinder for theological discussion, when he nailed his 95 theses (16th century equivalent of a blog) to the Wittenberg castle church door. One may also ‘fetch tow,’as to convey something in a tow bag, a gunnysack. Gunnysacks are not worth much, but their contents may be of value. The Apostle Paul said, "But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us." [2 Cor. 4:7] In earthen vessels or ‘tow bags,’ not everything I’ll share here will be my own. Sometimes, I’ll ‘fetch tow’ and share from greater minds than my own, with the hope of spinning a new fabric or starting a fire in our hearts or conversation.

Is Rome the Original Church?

It is a misunderstanding to say the Roman Catholic Church uniquely descends from the apostolic church and is the original church from which all others come. Protestants and Roman Catholics often misunderstand and misrepresent the nature and history of the Church.

There is one "catholic" (universal) Church on earth, sometimes more, sometimes less visible, always subject to mixture and error, manifesting itself in divers nations and eras. It is possible for particular churches to degenerate and to become no churches of Christ (‘synagogues of Satan’), although they may contain genuine believers. God promises there will always be a valid church, a remnant, on earth to worship Him and do His will against which the gates of hell will not prevail.

The church of the first generation was not perfect, but had its conflicts and problems, even in the New Testament era; just read the New Testament, especially the Acts of the Apostles.

In the early post-apostolic and patristic church (from the completion of the New Testament to the mid 700's AD) persecution kept it pure. The pastors, or bishops, of important cities, especially where the church was founded by an apostle, took on a leadership role against heresy.

The bishop of Rome had a prominence, but not the supremacy he claimed in the middle ages. The bishop of Rome took on increased authority in the power vacuum left by the fall of the western Roman Empire. However, much autonomy existed for national churches. The ancient Celtic church of the missionary bishop Patrick was not under Roman church authority. Not until the late 7th century, with the power of the Anglo-Saxon kings, was the Celtic church brought under the authority of Rome by the massacre of Celtic Christian leaders. Patrick was no Roman Catholic!

A major challenge to Roman supremacy came in 1054, when the bishops of the Eastern churches rejected the claims of the bishop of Rome. The Eastern and Western churches were divided, with the Roman bishop still claiming supreme authority in the West. The Eastern churches go back to the fist century and have an equal claim to antiquity. These are the predecessors Eastern Orthodox churches of today.

Many present doctrines and practices associated with the Roman church were articulated in the medieval period. The veneration of Mary and the saints, adoration of images, prayer for the dead, belief in baptismal regeneration and that sacraments had power in and of themselves, belief in purgatory and limbo, man made feasts and holy days, the mass and exaggerated power for the ecclesiastical hierarchy were all present. These and other man made abuses of doctrine, worship and practice polluted the church. These doctrines and practices often associated with Rome were not officially recognized, just condoned. The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as it does today.

The Protestant churches did not branch off from Rome. First the Eastern and Western churches divided. Then Rome and the various national Protestant churches divided from the Western church in the 1500's.

Luther, Calvin, Knox and other Reformers made no claim of starting a new church. They saw a continuity with the apostolic church; but said continuity must be faithful to the doctrine of the apostles as found in the Bible, not determined by claims to unscriptural authority. The Protestant churches of Germany, Switzerland, France, Holland, Hungary, Scotland and England were a continuation of the national churches in those lands purified in doctrine, worship and government. One could claim the Church of Scotland was a revival of the ancient Celtic church, now freed of Roman domination.

The Roman Catholic Church in its present form began at the Council of Trent in the 1560's. At that council, the unofficial pre-reformation doctrines became official church teaching. The constitution of the Roman church was reorganized, and the authority of the bishop of Rome made clear. The doctrines of transubstantiation and veneration of the saints became and prayer for the dead became official.

Protestant, Orthodox and Roman churches may claim continuity with the apostolic church. Protestant denominations today are no less part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Jesus Christ than the Eastern Orthodox or Roman churches. The closer a church is to the teachings of Jesus Christ, as found in the Bible, the more legitimate its claim to be the historic and genuine church. The church has authority as far as they root that authority in the Scriptures. Those faithful to the apostolic teachings of the Bible are ‘apostolic’ churches.

Protestants do not claim to be the only expression of the church. Most recognize there are true believers, even in apostate groups. Most recognize there is one catholic (universal) Church of Jesus Christ on earth, existing in various imperfect manifestations. The existence of so many Protestant denominations in America is a scandal. However, unity must be in the truth of the Bible, not in some lowest common denominator compromise.

In looking for a church, we should find the congregation and denomination which most nearly teaches and does all that Jesus commanded, that is most committed to the truth of the Bible, that finds its authority for all it teaches and practices- doctrine, government, discipline or worship- in Scriptures alone, and is willing to be guided and corrected (reformed) by Scripture as the voice of her Lord.

This defines a faithful, catholic and apostolic church of Jesus Christ. Faithful Reformed Churches may make this claim as well as any, better than most, certainly more than apostate Rome.

© 2006

Essentials of the Gospel

Thomas McCrie gives us this account in his Story of the Scottish Church pp. 247-248:

An English merchant, who had occasion to visit Scotland in the way of business about the year 1650, happened to hear three of the most eminent of the Scottish ministers of that age– Robert Blair, Samuel Rutherford, and David Dickson. Being asked, on his return, what news he had brought from Scotland, the gentleman, who had never shown any sense of religion before, replied, "Great and good news! I went to St. Andrews, where I heard a sweet and majestic-looking man (Blair); and he showed me the majesty of God. After him, I heard a little fair man (Rutherford); and he showed me the loveliness of Christ. I then went to Irvine, where I heard a well-favored proper old man, with a long beard (Dickson); and that man showed me all my heart."

That is a great tribute to three of the great ministers of the 17th Century Second Scottish Reformation. It is also a good summary of the essentials of the gospel:

We must know our sinfulness, God’s majesty, and His provision for us in Christ Jesus alone.

Cal Knox on the firing line

Calvin on the Godly Magistrate

John Calvin, in the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion, addressed to King Francis I of France:

The characteristic of a true sovereign is, to acknowledge that, in the administration of his kingdom, he is a minister of God. He who does not make his reign subservient to the divine glory, acts the part not of a king, but a robber. He, moreover, deceives himself who anticipates long prosperity to any kingdom which is not ruled by the sceptre of God, that is, by his divine word. For the heavenly oracle is infallible which has declared, that “where there is no vision the people perish” (Prov. 29:18).