>

Martyred for the Gospel

Martyred for the Gospel
The burning of Tharchbishop of Cant. D. Tho. Cranmer in the town dich at Oxford, with his hand first thrust into the fyre, wherwith he subscribed before. [Click on the picture to see Cranmer's last words.]

Daily Bible Verse

Sunday, April 26, 2026

The Declaration of Principles of the Protestant Reformed Churches in America

A brief Exposition of the Confessions Regarding Certain Points of Doctrine as Maintained by the Protestant Reformed Churches


Adopted by the Synod of 1951


Preamble

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES, to be used only by the Mission Committee and the missionaries for the organization of prospective churches on the basis of Scripture and the Confessions as these have always been maintained in the Protestant Reformed Churches and as these are now further explained in regard to certain principles.


The Protestant Reformed Churches stand on the basis of Scripture as the infallible Word of God and of the Three Forms of Unity. Moreover, they accept the liturgical forms used in the public worship of our churches, such as:


Form for the Administration of Baptism, Form for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, Form of Excommunication, Form of Readmitting Excommunicated Persons, Form of Ordination of the Ministers of God's Word, Form of Ordination of elders and Deacons, Form for the Installation of Professors of Theology, Form of Ordination of Missionaries, Form for the Confirmation of Marriage before the Church, and the Formula of Subscription.


On the basis of this Word of God and these confessions:


I. They repudiate the errors of the Three Points adopted by the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of Kalamazoo, 1924, which maintain:

A. That there is a grace of God to all men, including the reprobate, manifest in the common gifts to all men.


B. That the preaching of the gospel is a gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all that externally hear the gospel.


C. That the natural man through the influence of common grace can do good in this world.


D. Over against this they maintain:


1. That the grace of God is always particular, i.e., only for the elect, never for the reprobate.


2. That the preaching of the gospel is not a gracious offer of salvation on the part of God to all men, nor a conditional offer to all that are born in the historical dispensation of the covenant, that is, to all that are baptized, but an oath of God that He will infallibly lead all the elect unto salvation and eternal glory through faith.


3. That the unregenerate man is totally incapable of doing any good, wholly depraved, and therefore can only sin.


For proof, we refer to Canons I,A.,6-8:


Art. 6. That some receive the gift of faith from God, and others do not receive it proceeds from God's eternal decree, "for known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world," Acts 15:18. "Who worketh all things after the counsel of his will," Eph. 111. According to which decree, he graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however obstinate, and inclines them to believe, while he leaves the non-elect in his judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy. And herein is especially displayed the profound, the merciful, and at the same time the righteous discrimination between men, equally involved in ruin; or that decree of election and reprobation, revealed in the Word of God, which though men of perverse, impure and unstable minds wrest to their own destruction, yet to holy and pious souls affords unspeakable consolation.


Art. 7. Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, he hath out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of his own will, chosen, from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault, from their primitive state of rectitude, into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom he from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect, and the foundation of salvation.


This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God hath decreed to give to Christ, to be saved by him, and effectually to call and draw them to his communion by his Word and Spirit, to bestow upon them true faith, justification and sanctification and having powerfully preserved them in the fellowship of his Son, finally, to glorify them for the demonstration of his mercy, and for the praise of his glorious grace; as it is written, "According as he hath chosen us in him, before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy, and without blame before him in love; having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved," Eph. 1:4,5, 6. And elsewhere: "Whom he did predestinate, them he also called, and whom he called, them he also justified, and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Rom. 8:30.


Art. 8. There are not various decrees of election, but one and the same decree respecting all those, who shall be saved, both under the Old and New Testament: since the Scripture declares the good pleasure, purpose and counsel of the divine will to be one, according to which he hath chosen us from eternity, both to grace and glory, to salvation and the way of salvation, which he hath ordained that we should walk therein.


Canons II,A,5:


Art. 5, Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.


The Canons in II, 5 speak of the preaching of the promise. It presents the promise, not as general, but as particular, i.e., as for believers, and, therefore, for the elect. This preaching of the particular promise is promiscuous to all that hear the gospel with the command, not a condition, to repent and believe.


Canons II,B,6:


Art. 6. Who use the difference between meriting and appropriating, to the end that they may instill into the minds of the imprudent and inexperienced this teaching that God, as far as he is concerned, has been minded of applying to all equally the benefits gained by the death of Christ; but that while some obtain the pardon of sin and eternal life, and others do not, this difference depends on their own free will, which joins itself to the grace that is offered without exception, and that it is not dependent on the special gift of mercy, which powerfully works in them, that they rather than others should appropriate unto themselves this grace. For these, while they feign that they present this distinction, in a sound sense, seek to instill into the people the destructive poison of the Pelagian errors.


For further proof we refer to the Heidelberg Catechism, III,8, and XXXIII, 91:


Q. 8. Are we then so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of doing any good, and inclined to all wickedness?


A. Indeed we are; except we are regenerated by the Spirit of God.


Q. 91. But what are good works?


A. Only those which proceed from a true faith, are performed according to the law of God, and to his glory; and not such as are founded on our imaginations, or the institutions of men.


And also from the Netherlands Confession, Article XIV:


Art. XIV. We believe that God created man out of the dust of the earth, and made and formed him after his own image and likeness, good, righteous, and holy, capable in all things to will, agreeably to the will of God. But being in honor, he understood it not, neither knew his excellency, but willfully subjected himself to sin, and consequently to death, and the curse, giving ear to the words of the devil. For the commandment of life, which he had received, he transgressed; and by sin separated himself from God, who was his true life, having corrupted his whole nature; whereby he made himself liable to corporal and spiritual death. And being thus become wicked, perverse, and corrupt in all his ways, he hath lost all his excellent gifts, which he had received from God, and only retained a few remains thereof, which, however, are sufficient to leave man without excuse; for all the light which is in us is changed into darkness, as the Scriptures teach us, saying: The light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not: where St. John calleth men darkness. Therefore we reject all that is taught repugnant to this, concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin; and has nothing of himself, unless it is given from heaven. For who may presume to boast, that he of himself can do any good, since Christ saith, No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him? Who will glory in his own will, who understands, that to be carnally minded is enmity against God? Who can speak of his knowledge, since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God? In short, who dare suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think anything as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God? And therefore what the apostle saith ought justly to be held sure and firm that God worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. For there is no will nor understanding, conformable to the divine will and understanding, but what Christ hath wrought in man; which he teaches us, when he saith, Without me ye can do nothing.


Once more we refer to Canons III-IV, A, 1-4:


Art. 1. Man was originally formed after the image of God, His understanding was adorned with a true and saving knowledge of his Creator, and of spiritual things; his heart and will were upright; all his affections pure; and the whole man was holy; but revolting from God by the instigation of the devil, and abusing the freedom of his own will, he forfeited these excellent gifts; and on the contrary entailed on himself blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity and perverseness of judgment, became wicked, rebellious, and obdurate in heart and will, and impure in his affections.


Art. 2. Man after the fall begat children in his own likeness. A corrupt stock produced a corrupt off-spring. Hence all the posterity of Adam, Christ only excepted, have derived corruption from their original parent, not by imitation, as the Pelagians of old asserted, but by the propagation of a vicious nature.


Art. 3. Therefore all men are conceived in sin, and by nature children of wrath, incapable of saving good, prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage thereto, and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor willing to return to God, to reform the depravity of their nature, nor to dispose themselves to reformation.


Art. 4. There remain, however, in man since the fall the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God, and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted, and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.


II. They teach on the basis of the same confessions:

A. That election, which is the unconditional and unchangeable decree of God to redeem in Christ a certain number of persons, is the sole cause and fountain of all our salvation, whence flow all the gifts of grace, including faith. This is the plain teaching of our confessions in the Canons of Dordrecht, I,A,6,7. See above.


And in the Heidelberg Catechism XXI, 54, we read:


Q. 54. What believest thou concerning the "holy catholic church" of Christ?


A. That the Son of God from the beginning to the end of the world, gathers, defends, and preserves to himself by his Spirit and Word, out of the whole human race, a church chosen to everlasting life, agreeing in true faith; and that I am and forever shall remain a living member thereof.


This is also evident from the doctrinal part of the Form for the Administration of Baptism, where we read:


For when we are baptized in the name of the Father, God the Father witnesseth and sealeth unto us that he doth make an eternal covenant of grace with us, and adopts us for his children and heirs, and therefore will provide us with every good thing, and avert all evil or turn it to our profit. And when we are baptized in the name of the Son, the son sealeth unto us, that he doth wash us in his blood from all our sins, incorporating us into the fellowship of his death and resurrection, so that we are freed from all our sins, and accounted righteous before God. In like manner, when we are baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost assures us, by this holy sacrament, that he will dwell in us, and sanctify us to be members of Christ, applying unto us, that which we have in Christ, namely, the washing away of our sins, and the daily renewing of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without spot or wrinkle among the assembly of the elect in life eternal.


B. That Christ died only for the elect and that the saving efficacy of the death of Christ extends to them only.


This is evident from the Canons, II,A,8:


Art. 8. For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, he purchased for them by his death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in his own presence forever.


This article very clearly teaches:


1. That all the covenant blessings are for the elect alone.


2. That God's promise is unconditionally for them only: for God cannot promise what was not objectively permitted by Christ.


3. That the promise of God bestows the objective right of salvation not upon all the children that are born under the historical dispensation of the covenant, that is, not upon all that are baptized, but only upon the spiritual seed.


This is also evident from other parts of our confessions, as, for instance:


Heidelberg Catechism XXV, 65-66:


Q. 65. Since then we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, whence doth this faith proceed?


A. From the Holy Ghost, who works faith in our hearts by the preaching of the gospel, and confirms it by the use of the sacraments.


Q. 66. What are the sacraments?


A. The sacraments are holy visible signs and seals, appointed of God for this end, that by the use thereof, he may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the gospel, viz., that he grants us freely the remission of sin, and life eternal, for the sake of that one sacrifice of Christ, accomplished on the cross.


If we compare with these statements from the Heidelberger what was taught concerning the saving efficacy of the death of Christ in Canons II,A,8, it is evident that the promise of the gospel which is sealed by the sacraments concerns only the believers, that is, the elect.


This is also evident from the Heidelberg Catechism XXVII, 74,


Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized?


A. Yes: for since they, as well as the adult, are included in the covenant and church of God; and since redemption from sin by the blood of Christ, and the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to them no less than to the adult; they must therefore by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, be also admitted into the Christian church; and be distinguished from the children of unbelievers as was done in the old covenant or testament by circumcision, instead of which baptism is instituted in the new covenant.


That in this question and answer of the Heidelberger not all the children that are baptized, but only the spiritual children, that is, the elect, are meant is evident. For:


a. Little infants surely cannot fulfill any conditions. And if the promise of God is for them, the promise is infallible and unconditional, and therefore only for the elect.


b. According to Canons II,A,8, which we quoted above, the saving efficacy of the death of Christ is for the elect alone.


c. According to this answer of the Heidelberg Catechism, the Holy Ghost, the author of faith, is promised to the little children no less than to the adult. And God surely fulfills His promise. Hence, that promise is surely only for the elect.


The same is taught in the Netherlands Confession, Articles XXXIII-XXXV. In Article XXXIII we read:


Art. XXXIII. We believe, that our gracious God, on account of our weakness and infirmities hath ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us his promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God toward us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith; which he hath joined to the Word of the gospel, the better to present to our senses, both that which he signifies to us by his Word, and that which he works inwardly in our hearts, thereby assuring and confirming in us the salvation which he imparts to us. For they are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God worketh in us by the power of the Holy Ghost. Therefore the signs are not in vain or insignificant, so as to deceive us. For Jesus Christ is the true object presented by them, without whom they would be of no moment.


And from article XXXIV, which speaks of holy baptism, we quote:


Art. XXXIV. We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, hath made an end, by the shedding of his blood, of all other sheddings of blood which men could or would make as a propitiation or satisfaction for sin: and that he, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, hath instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people and strange religions, that we may wholly belong to him, whose ensign and banner we bear: and which serves as a testimony to us, that he will forever be our gracious God and Father. Therefore he has commanded all those, who are his, to be baptized with pure water, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"; thereby signifying to us that as water washeth away the filth of the body, when poured upon it, and is seen on the body of the baptized, when sprinkled upon him; so doth the blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost, internally sprinkle the soul, cleanse it from its sins, and regenerate us from children of wrath, unto children of God. Not that this is effected by the external water, but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God; who is our Red Sea, through which we must pass, to escape the tyranny of Pharaoh, that is, the devil, and to enter into the spiritual land of Canaan. Therefore the ministers, on their part, administer the sacrament, and that which is visible, but our Lord giveth that which is signified by the sacrament, namely, the gifts and invisible grace; washing, cleansing and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness; renewing our hearts, and filling them with all comfort; giving unto us a true assurance of his fatherly goodness; putting on us the new man, and putting off the old man with all his deeds.


Article XXXIV speaks of holy baptism. That all this, washing and cleansing and purging our souls of all filth and unrighteousness, that renewal of our hearts, is only the fruit of the saving efficacy of the death of Christ and therefore is only for the elect is very evident. The same is true of what we read in the same article concerning the baptism of infants:


Art. XXXIV. And indeed Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful, than for adult persons; and therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of that, which Christ hath done for them; as the Lord commanded in the law, that they should be made partakers of the sacrament of Christ's suffering and death, shortly after they were born, by offering for them a lamb, which was a sacrament of Jesus Christ. Moreover, what circumcision was to the Jews, that baptism is to our children. And for this reason Paul calls baptism the circumcision of Christ.


If, according to Article 8 of the Second Head of Doctrine, A, in the Canons, the saving efficacy of the death of Christ extends only to the elect, it follows that when in this article of the Netherlands Confession it is stated that "Christ shed his blood no less for the washing of the children of the faithful than for the adult persons," also here the reference is only to the elect children.


Moreover, that the promise of the gospel which God signifies and seals in the sacraments is not for all is also abundantly evident from Article XXXV of the same Netherlands Confession, which speaks of the holy supper of our Lord Jesus Christ. For there we read:


Art. XXXV. We believe and confess, that our Savior Jesus Christ did ordain and institute the sacrament of the holy supper, to nourish and support those whom he hath already regenerated, and incorporated into his family, which is his Church.


In the same article we read:


Further, though the sacraments are connected with the thing signified, nevertheless both are not received by all men; the ungodly indeed receives the sacrament to his condemnation, but he doth not receive the truth of the sacrament. As Judas, and Simon the sorcerer, both indeed received the sacrament, but not Christ, who was signified by it, of whom believers only are made partakers.


It follows from this that both the sacraments, as well as the preaching of the gospel, are a savor of death unto death for the reprobate, as well as a savor of life unto life for the elect. Hence, the promise of God, preached by the gospel, signified and sealed in both the sacraments, is not for all but for the elect only.


And that the election of God, and consequently the efficacy of the death of Christ and the promise of the gospel, is not conditional is abundantly evident from the following articles of the Canons.


Canons I, A, 10:


Art. 10. the good pleasure of God is the sole cause of this gracious election; which doth not consist herein, that out of all possible qualities and actions of men God has chosen some as a condition of salvation; but that he was pleased out of the common mass of sinners to adopt some certain persons as a peculiar people to himself, as it is written, "For the children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil," etc., it was said (namely to Rebecca): "the elder shall serve the younger; as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Romans 9:11-13. "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48.


In Canons I, B, 2, the errors are repudiated of those who teach:


Art. 2. That there are various kinds of election of God unto eternal life: the one general and indefinite, the other particular and definite; and that the latter in turn is either incomplete, revocable, non-decisive and conditional, or complete, irrevocable, decisive and absolute....


And in the same chapter of Canons I, B, 3, the errors are repudiated of those who teach:


Art. 3. That the good pleasure and purpose of God, of which Scripture makes mention in the doctrine of election, does not consist in this, that God chose certain persons rather than others, but in this that he chose out of all possible conditions among which are also the works of the law), or out of the whole order of things, the act of faith, which from its very nature is undeserving, as well as its incomplete obedience, as a condition of salvation, and that he would graciously consider this initself as a complete obedience and count it worthy of the reward of eternal life….


And in the same chapter of Canons I, B, 5, the errors are repudiated of those who teach that:


Art. 5. ...faith, the obedience of faith, holiness, godliness and perseverance are not fruits of the unchangeable election unto glory, but are conditions, which, being required beforehand, were foreseen as being met by those who will be fully elected, and are causes without which the unchangeable election to glory does not occur.


Finally, we refer to the statement of the Baptism Form:


And although our young children do not understand these things, we may not therefore exclude them from baptism, for as they are without their knowledge, partakers of the condemnation in Adam, so are they again received unto grace in Christ....


That here none other than the elect children of the covenant are meant and that they are unconditionally, without their knowledge, received unto grace in Christ, in the same way as they are under the condemnation of Adam, is very evident.


C. That faith is not a prerequisite or condition unto salvation, but a gift of God, and a God-given instrument whereby we appropriate the salvation in Christ. This is plainly taught in the following parts of our confessions:


Heidelberg Catechism VII, 20:


Q. 20. Are all men, then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ?


A. No; only those who are engrafted into him, and receive all his benefits, by a true faith.


Netherlands Confession, Article XXII:


Art. XXII. We believe that, to attain the true knowledge of this great mystery, the Holy Ghost kindleth in our hearts an upright faith, which embraces Jesus Christ, with all his merits, appropriates him, and seeks nothing more besides him. For it must needs follow, either that all things, which are requisite to our salvation, are not in Jesus Christ, or if all things are in him, that then those who possess Jesus Christ through faith, have complete salvation in him. Therefore, for any to assert, that Christ is not sufficient, but that something more is required besides him, would be too gross a blasphemy; for hence it would follow, that Christ was but half a Savior. Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean, that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our Righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all his merits, and so many holy works which he has done for us, and in our stead, is our Righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with him in all his benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.


Confer also Netherlands Confession, Articles XXXIII-XXXV, quoted above.


Again, confer Canons of Dordrecht II, A, 8, quoted above.


In Canons III-IV, A, 10, 14 we read:


Art. 10. but that others who are called by the gospel, obey the call, and are converted, is not to be ascribed to the proper exercise of free will, whereby one distinguishes himself above others, equally furnished with grace sufficient for faith and conversions, as the proud heresy of Pelagius maintains; but it must be wholly ascribed to God who as he has chosen his own from eternity in Christ, so he confers upon them faith and repentance, rescues them from the power of darkness, and translates them into the kingdom of his own Son, that they may show forth the praises of him, who hath called them out of darkness into his marvelous light; and may glory not in themselves, but in the Lord according to the testimony of the apostles in various places.


Again, in the same chapter of Canons, Article 14, we read:


Art. 14. Faith is therefore to be considered as the gift of God, not on account of its being offered by God to man, to be accepted or rejected at his pleasure; but because it is in reality conferred, breathed, and infused into him; or even because God bestows the power or ability to believe, and then expects that man should by the exercise of his own free will, consent to the terms of salvation, and actually believe in Christ; but because he who works in man both to will and to do, and indeed all things in all, produces both the will to believe, and the act of believing also.


III. Seeing then that this is the clear teaching of our confession,

A. We repudiate:


1. The teaching:


a. That the promise of the covenant is conditional and for all that are baptized.


b. That we may presuppose that all the children that are baptized are regenerated, for we know on the basis of Scripture, as well as in the light of all history and experience, that the contrary is true.


For proof we refer to Canons I, A, 6-8; and the doctrinal part of the Baptismal Form:


The principal parts of the doctrine of holy baptism are these three:


First, That we with our children are conceived and born in sin, and therefore are children of wrath, in so much that we cannot enter into the kingdom of God, except we are born again. This, the dipping in, or sprinkling with water teaches us, whereby the impurity of our souls is signified, and we admonished to loathe, and humble ourselves before God, and seek for our purification and salvation without ourselves.


Secondly, Holy baptism witnesseth and sealeth unto us the washing away of our sins through Jesus Christ. Therefore we are baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. For when we are baptized in the name of the Father, God the Father witnesseth and sealeth unto us, that he doth make an eternal covenant of grace with us, and adopts us for his children and heirs, and therefore will provide us with every good thing, and avert all evil or turn it to our profit. And when we are baptized in the name of the Son, the Son sealeth unto us, that he doth wash us in his blood from all our sins, incorporating us into the fellowship of his death and resurrection, so that we are freed from all our sins, and accounted righteous before God. In like manner, when we are baptized in the name of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost assures us, by this holy sacrament, that he will dwell in us, and sanctify us to be members of Christ, applying unto us, that which we have in Christ, namely, the washing away of our sins, and the daily renewing of our lives, till we shall finally be presented without spot or wrinkle among the assembly of the elect in life eternal.


Thirdly, Whereas in all covenants, there are contained two parts: therefore are we by God through baptism, admonished of, and obliged unto new obedience, namely, that we cleave to this one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; that we trust in him, and love him with all our hearts, with all our souls, with all our mind, and with all our strength; that we forsake the world, crucify our old nature, and walk in a new and holy life.


And if we sometimes through weakness fall into sin, we must not therefore despair of God's mercy, nor continue in sin, since baptism is a seal and undoubted testimony, that we have an eternal covenant of grace with God.


The Thanksgiving after baptism:


Almighty God and merciful Father, we thank and praise thee, that Thou hast forgiven us, and our children, all our sins, through the blood of thy beloved Son Jesus Christ, and received us through thy Holy Spirit as members of thine only begotten Son, and adopted us to be thy children, and sealed and confirmed the same unto us by holy baptism; we beseech thee, through the same Son of thy love, that Thou wilt be pleased always to govern these baptized children by thy Holy Spirit, that they may be piously and religiously educated, increase and grow up in the Lord Jesus Christ, that they may then acknowledge thy fatherly goodness and mercy, which Thou hast shown to them and us, and live in all righteousness, under our only Teacher, King and High Priest, Jesus Christ; and manfully fight against, and overcome sin, the devil and his whole dominion, to the end that they may eternally praise and magnify thee, and thy Son Jesus Christ, together with the Holy Ghost, the one only true God. Amen.


The prayer refers only to the elect; we cannot presuppose that it is for all.


2. The teaching that the promise of the covenant is an objective bequest on the part of God giving to every baptized child the right to Christ and all the blessings of salvation.


B. And we maintain:


1. That God surely and infallibly fulfills His promise to the elect.


2. The sure promise of God which He realizes in us as rational and moral creatures not only makes it impossible that we should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness but also confronts us with the obligation of love, to walk in a new and holy life, and constantly to watch unto prayer.


All those who are not thus disposed, who do not repent but walk in sin, are the objects of His just wrath and excluded from the kingdom of heaven.


That the preaching comes to all; and that God seriously commands to faith and repentance, and that to all those who come and believe He promises life and peace.


Grounds:


a. The Baptism Form, part 3.


b. The Form for the Lord's Supper, under "thirdly":


All those, then, who are thus disposed, God will certainly receive in mercy, and count them worthy partakers of the table of his Son Jesus Christ. On the contrary, those who do not feel this testimony in their hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.


Therefore, we also, according to the command of Christ and the Apostle Paul, admonish all those who are defiled with the following sins, to keep themselves from the table of the Lord, and declare to them that they have no part in the kingdom of Christ; such as all idolaters, all those who invoke deceased saints, angels, or other creatures; all those who worship images; all enchanters, diviners, charmers, and those who confide in such enchantments; all despisers of God, and of his Word, and of the holy sacraments; all blasphemers; all those who are given to raise discord, sects and mutiny in Church or State; all perjured persons; all those who are disobedient to their parents and superiors; all murders, contentious persons, and those who live in hatred and envy against their neighbors; all adulterers, whoremongers, drunkards, thieves, usurers, robbers, gamsters, covetous, and all who lead offensive lives.


All these, while they continue in such sins, shall abstain from this meat (which Christ hath ordained only for the faithful), lest their judgment and condemnation be made the heavier.


c. The Heidelberg Catechism XXIV, 64; XXXI, 84; XLV, 116:


Q. 64. But doth not this doctrine make men careless and profane?


A. By no means: for it is impossible that those, who are implanted into Christ by a true faith, should not bring forth fruits of thankfulness.


Q. 84. How is the kingdom of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the holy gospel?


A. Thus: when according to the command of Christ, it is declared and publicly testified to all and every believer, that, whenever they receive the promise of the gospel by a true faith, all their sins are really forgiven them of God, for the sake of Christ's merits; and on the contrary, when it is declared and testified to all unbelievers, and such as do not sincerely repent, that they stand exposed to the wrath of God, and eternal condemnation, so long as they are unconverted: according to which testimony of the Gospel, God will judge them, both in this, and in the life to come.


Q. 116. Why is prayer necessary for Christians?


A. Because it is the chief part of thankfulness which God requires of us: and also, because God will give his grace and Holy Spirit to those only, who with sincere desires continually ask them of him, and are thankful for them.


Canons III-IV, A, 12, 16, 17:


Art. 12. And this is the regeneration so highly celebrated in Scripture, and denominated a new creation: a resurrection from the dead, a making alive, which God works in us without our aid. But this is in no wise effected merely by the external preaching of the gospel, by moral suasion, or such a mode of operation, that after God has performed his part, it still remains in the power of man to be regenerated or not, to be converted, or to continue unconverted; but it is evidently a supernatural work, most powerful, and at the same time most delightful, astonishing, mysterious, and ineffable; not inferior in efficacy to creation, or the resurrection from the dead, as the Scripture inspired by the author of this work declares; so that all in whose heart God works in this marvelous manner, are certainly, infallibly, and effectually regenerated, and do actually believe. Whereupon the will thus renewed, is not only actuated and influenced by God, but in consequence of this influence, becomes itself active. Wherefore also, man is himself rightly said to believe and repent, by virtue of that grace received.


Art 16. But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature, endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind, deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor takes away their will and its properties, neither does violence thereto; but spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it; that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore unless the admirable author of every good work wrought in us, man could have no hope of recovering from his fall by his own free will, by the abuse of which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.


Art. 17. As the almighty operation of God, whereby he prolongs and supports this our natural life, does not exclude, but requires the use of means, by which God of his infinite mercy and goodness hath chosen to exert his influence, so also the before mentioned supernatural operation of God, by which we are regenerated, in no wise excludes, or subverts the use of the gospel, which the most wise God has ordained to be the seed of regeneration, and food of the soul. Wherefore, as the apostles, and teachers who succeeded them, piously instructed the people concerning this grace of God, to his glory, and the abasement of all pride, and in the meantime, however, neglected not to keep them by the sacred precepts of the gospel in the exercise of the Word, sacraments and discipline; so even to this day, be it far from either instructors or instructed to presume to tempt God in the church by separating what he of his good pleasure hath most intimately joined together. For grace is conferred by means of admonitions; and the more readily we perform our duty, the more eminent usually is this blessing of God working in us, and the more directly is his work advanced; to whom alone all the glory both of means, and of their saving fruit and efficacy is forever due. Amen.


Canons III-IV, B, 9:


Art. 9. Who teach: that grace and free will are partial causes, which together work the beginning of conversion, and that grace, in order of working, does not precede the working of the will; that is, that God does not efficiently help the will of man unto conversion until the will of man moves and determines to do this. For the ancient Church has long ago condemned this doctrine of the Pelagians according to the words of the Apostle: "So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy," Romans 9:16. Likewise: "For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive?" I Corinthians 4:7. And: "For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure," Phillippians 2:13.


Canons V, A, 14:


Art. 14. And as it hath pleased God, by the preaching of the gospel, to begin this work of grace in us, so he preserves, continues, and perfect it by the hearing and reading of his Word, by meditation thereon, and by the exhortations, threatenings, and promises thereof, as well as by the use of the sacraments.


Netherlands Confession, Article XXIV:


Art. XXIV. We believe that this true faith being wrought in man by the hearing of the Word of God, and the operation of the Holy Ghost, doth regenerate and make him a new man, causing him to live a new life, and freeing him from the bondage of sin. Therefore it is so far from being true, that this justifying faith makes men remiss in a pious and holy life, that on the contrary without it they would never do anything out of love to God, but only out of self-love or fear of damnation. Therefore it is impossible that this holy faith can be unfruitful in man: for we do not speak of a vain faith, but of such a faith, which is called in Scripture, a faith that worketh by love, which excites man to the practice of those works, which God has commanded in his Word.


Which works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace: howbeit they are of no account towards our justification. For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good, before the tree itself is good.


Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them, (for what can we merit?) nay, we are beholden to God for the good works we do, and not he to us, since it is he that worketh in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Let us therefore attend to what is written: when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do. In the meantime, we do not deny that God rewards our good works, but it is through his grace that he crowns his gifts.


Moreover, though we do good works, we do not found our salvation upon them; for we do no work but what is polluted by our flesh, and also punishable; and although we could perform such works, still the remembrance of one sin is sufficient to make God reject them. thus then we would always be in doubt, tossed to and fro without any certainty, and our poor consciences continually vexed, if they relied not on the merits of the suffering and death of our Savior.


3. That the ground of infant baptism is the command of God and the fact that according to Scripture He established His covenant in the line of continued generations.


IV. Besides, the Protestant Reformed Churches:

Believe and maintain the autonomy of the local church.


For proof we refer to the Netherlands Confession, Article XXXI:


Art. XXXI. We believe, that the ministers of God's Word, and the elders and deacons, ought to be chosen to their respective offices by a lawful election by the Church, with calling upon the name of the Lord, and in that order which the Word of God teacheth. Therefore every one must take heed, not to intrude himself by indecent means, but is bound to wait till it shall please God to call him; that he may have testimony of his calling, and be certain and assured that it is of the Lord. As for the ministers of God's Word, they have equally the same power and authority wheresoever they are, as they are all ministers of Christ, the only universal Bishop, and the only Head of the Church. Moreover, that this holy ordinance of God may not be violated or slighted, we say that every one ought to esteem the ministers of God's Word, and the elders of the church, very highly for their work's sake, and be at peace with them without murmuring, strife or contention, as much as possible.


Church Order, Article 36:


Art. 36. The classis has the same jurisdiction over the consistory as the particular synod has over the classis and the general synod over the particular.


Only the consistory has authority over the local congregation. Church Order, Article 84.


Art. 84. No church shall in any way lord it over other churches, no minister over other ministers, no elder or deacon over other elders or deacons.


The Form for the Installation of Elders and Deacons:


"...called of God's Church, and consequently of God himself...."

Saturday, September 27, 2025

Should Women Be Ordained to the Office of Deacon?

 

In addition to these elements of liberty, which particularly concern us in our individual lives, Christian liberty includes liberty of conscience in the face of tyrannical ecclesiastical organizations.  Some years ago a young man presented himself to a Presbytery for ordination.  As he was known to believe that the boards and agencies of that church were infiltrated with modernism, he was asked if he would support the boards regardless of what they did.  When the young man declined to make any such blind promise, the Presbytery refused to ordain him.  

Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  Essays on Ethics and Politics.  John Robbins, ed.  (Jefferson:  Trinity Foundation, 1992).  P. 21.

 

 

Should Women Be Ordained to the Church Office of Deacon?  A Response to the ARP

 

The Reformed view of Scripture is that Scripture and Scripture alone is the final authority in all matters of faith, practice and controversy in the local church or session, the presbytery, and the general assembly.  It is easy to prove this by the fact that the Westminster Confession of Faith says so in the very first chapter:

 

WCF 1.8  The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (WCF 1:8 WCS)

WCF 1.9  The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

WCF 1.10  The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

 (WCF 1:9-10 WCS)  [See:  Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1].

In a recent inquirers class which I attended, the lead pastor or teaching elder, Dr. Neil Stewart, told me in a private conversation that he agreed with me that women should not be ordained as deacons.  That being said, he claimed that the other side has convincing arguments, and that they would win the debate with me should I try to argue with them.  I would like to accept that challenge.  To Dr. Stewart, I challenge him to prove me wrong or produce someone else who can prove me wrong when I say that the Bible unequivocally denies the ordination of women to any church office whatsoever, including the of office deacon.

I am aware that there are differences of opinion among various denominations on the issue.  However, denominations and opinions are irrelevant when they are not the final authority.  The first thing that I notice is that everyone has a different opinion in defining the office of a deacon.  The argument from the other side that women should be ordained as deacons leans heavily into equivocation on the definitions of various church offices.  Their other arguments depend on bad biblical exegesis and the highly controversial “science” of textual criticism.  The principle of the analogy of faith, however, requires that the plain passages of Scripture must prevail over arguments from silence and tendentious arguments which assert the consequent in the premise.

This discussion will be brief but to the point.  Additionally, I will respond to an article posted by Thomas Schreiner at the Gospel Coalition.  The article can be read here:  Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes.  You might ask, why does it matter?  That answer to that question should be obvious.  However, since some will say it is not obvious I will state the issue clearly.  All of the doctrines of the Bible fit together in harmony.  There are no contradictions in the Bible because God is Logic (John 1:1).  Does God breathe out irrational propositions that do not agree with other propositions in the Bible?  Does God breathe out confusion in the Bible?  The Bible is the written word of God.  Once we begin to question one principle of the Scriptures, the rest begins to collapse as well.  Liberal activists infiltrate conservative churches with an agenda.  Their mode of operation is called utilitarianism.  The end justifies the means.  These activists have no problem with outright lying, equivocation, dissimulation or relativism.  Their agenda is to muddy the waters so that once they have a foothold a further compromise can be gained.  Often this takes several generations to take hold.  Even in the Bible we see a cycle of good kings and bad kings in the nation of Israel.  (See 1 & 2 Kings and 1 & 2 Chronicles KJV). 

Many mainline Reformed denominations have gone liberal for good reason.  Once a seed is planted that produces bad fruit, it later produces a harvest of entirely bad fruit.  I grew up in Florida.  To illustrate this point from an agricultural point of view, citrus groves and cattle ranches are an important part of the Florida economy.  When citrus canker infects an orange grove the entire grove must be pulled up by the roots, and the trees must be burned to prevent the spread of the disease to other citrus groves.  A few years ago, there was a scare about mad cow disease that infects the brains of bovines.  Once a herd is infected the entire herd has to be quarantined and put down to prevent the spread of the disease.  Obviously, that approach does not work with Evangelical and Reformed churches and denominations.  That being said, we must take a stand when compromise enters a local session or congregation.  Once the disease takes hold in one session or presbytery, the next thing is that the entire denomination or general assembly is infected with the divisive heresy.  As the Scripture says, a little leaven leavens the whole lump.  (1 Corinthians 5:5-6; Galatians 5:7-9 KJV).

My first point will be to define the office of a deacon as it is defined in the Bible.  There are those who will argue that the deacon is not a teaching office or an office that asserts authority over men.  But the biblical evidence for that argument is weak at best and based on asserting the consequent at worst.  According to the apostle Paul, the qualifications for the office of an elder and a deacon are exactly the same qualifications regarding the biological gender of the person taking the office:

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife . . .  (1 Tim. 3:2 KJV) 

Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife . . .  (1 Tim. 3:12 KJV)

According to the principle of the plain text of Scripture being the primary source of biblical authority and interpretation of the text, it should be obvious to everyone that however we define the offices of elder and deacon, both offices require male leadership as the qualification.  However, the naysayers, in this case Thomas Schreiner, try to flip the script and proclaim the exact opposite using obscure biblical references and a questionable exegesis of 1 Timothy 3:1-15.

I will skip over the definition of a teaching elder since that is not in dispute here.  Teaching elders must be apt to teach and preach the word of God.  There is another issue here that I cannot delve into in this discussion.  That issue is the presbyterian church office of “ruling” elder.  I see no such office mentioned in the text.  Of course, the dispute is over different kinds of church polity or church government.  The most basic forms of church polity are congregational, associational, presbyterial, and episcopal.  I am committed to the presbyterian form of church government as it is expressed in the Westminster Standards:  The Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism.  That being said, church officers, presbyters and synods can and often do err:

WCF 31.4  All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both. (WCF 31:4 WCS)  [Westminster Confession, Chapter 31].

What exactly is the office of a deacon according to the Holy Scriptures.  The definition of the office of deacon cannot be divorced from the very first appointment of deacons in the church after the inauguration of the New Testament church on the day of Pentecost.  After Jesus ascended into heaven on the fortieth day after His resurrection, the disciples and the apostles gathered in the upper room to choose another apostle to replace Judas Iscariot and to discuss the promise given by Jesus.  (Acts 1:1-4, 8-15).  Ten days later on the day of Pentecost the Holy Spirit came to empower the New Testament church to be witnesses of Him (Acts 1:8; 2:1-42).  The first thing that happened after Peter’s sermon was that 3,000 of the Jews gathered for the feast of booths on the day of Pentecost were converted by the Holy Spirit, baptized by water, and added to the church (Acts 2:41).  The next thing that happened is that those who gladly received the message of the Gospel continued hearing the Old Testament Scriptures preached and taught in conjunction with the breaking of bread or the sacrament of the Lord’s supper or the table of the Lord.  (Luke 24:27; Acts 2:14-36; Acts 2:35, 42).  The text here does not say who administered the two sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.  However, we can infer from the evidence that the apostles administered both and that due to the huge numbers of persons—namely 3,000 new converts—that there must have been some delegation of the administration to the other disciples and the lesser apostles.  There is no mention of women being involved in the administration of either of the two sacraments here.

The next problem for those who advocate for women being ordained to the office of the diaconate is that the very first ordination service of deacons exactly specifies who was chosen to be deacons:

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: 6 Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them. (Acts 6:3-6 KJV)

One would think that if the apostles had intended to ordain women as deacons of any kind whatsoever that we would see a prescription for the ordination of women deacons in the Scriptures.  But we see none of that and for good reason.  There were no women ordained to the diaconate in the New Testament church as recorded in Scripture.  Of course, this is an argument from silence, according to the other side.

Thomas Schreiner, for example says:

. . .  another argument in support of female deacons is from silence, but it’s an important one. The argument goes like this: If the reference is to the wives of deacons, why does Paul omit a reference to the wives of elders, particularly since elders exercise pastoral oversight and overall leadership in the church? It would seem the character of the wives of elders would be even more important than the wives of deacons—and thus focusing on the wives of deacons, but not on the wives of elders, is strange. Yet if the reference is to female deacons, we have an elegant explanation for why the wives of elders aren’t mentioned—for the wives of deacons aren’t included either. In other words, Paul isn’t referring to wives at all, but to female deacons.  (Does the Bible Support Female Deacons? Yes).

Although this paper is not about Bible translations or the reasoned eclecticism approach to textual criticism, the thrust of Schreiner’s argument for the ordination of women to the office of deacon is derived from the New International Version of the Bible:

The issue is addressed directly in only two verses (Rom. 16:1; 1 Tim. 3:11), and the meaning of both is disputed. The disagreement surfaces in English translations. Romans 16:1 in the NIV reads, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.” The CSB translates the same verse, “I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchreae.” (Ibid.).

The other argument that Schreiner proposes is based on the fact that the Greek verse leaves out the pronoun that the women were the wives of the deacons; but this is assumed from the both the text and the fact that in the Scriptures there is not a single instance of females being ordained or having hands laid upon them in an ordination service as noted above in Acts 6:3-6.  It is an historical fact that Schreiner’s position has never been taken by any of the Reformed denominations prior to recent times when the cultural accommodation of the liberals had infiltrated mainline Reformed denominations in the 20th century.  The only exception that I was able to find was the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, which affirmed women as deacons in 1888 according to Bryan Schneider at the Gentle Reformation blog.  (Women and the Deacon’s Office).  According to the history given by Schneider, one activist congregation decided to push the issue by ordaining one single woman to the office of the diaconate.  ( See:  An Extremely Brief History).

As stated by the late Dr. Gordon H. Clark, the issue of ordination of women to the office of deacons is that it is an issue of women being in authority over men in the church:

To quote, the Form of Government, V, 5 says, “The formal steps by which a young man becomes an ordained minister....” It does not say “a young person,” and it does not say “a young man or woman.” Since even a few years ago, no one advocated the ordination of women, this reference to a man rather than a woman was neither emphasized nor repeated. At V, 8, the Form of Government simply says, “The qualifications of both teaching elders and ruling elders....” “Laymen, ordained to the eldership” is another phrase. It is also said that these elders have “a certain ruling or governing authority.” The section on deacons is not so explicit. Had women been envisioned as possible candidates it would have had to be explicit. The Report takes the position that Scripture allows the ordination of women as deacons but prohibits their ordination as elders. If this were the Reformed Presbyterian position, the Form of Government would have had to state the difference explicitly, clearly, and emphatically. It does not do so. What is explicitly said is, “The minister shall then propound to the elder- or deacon-elect the following questions: See Section 3 of this chapter.”

Thus, pastors, elders, and deacons all take the same vows, with the one exception that pastors assent to question 8; while other ministers-not pastors, elders, and deacons-assent to question 9. None of these nine vows explicitly mentions authority to teach. But if this authority is assumed for an elder, it is also assumed for a deacon, because ruling elders, deacons, and non-pastoral ministers are treated as a single class. Then further, in V, 9, d, upon the ordination of a deacon, the minister says, “We give you the right hand of fellowship to take part of this office with us.” Note that this is not an ordination of deacons-elect by previously ordained deacons, with the idea that then elders are ordained by elders. Such might indeed greatly distinguish elders from deacons. It is the minister who says to the deacon-elect, “We give you the right hand of fellowship to take part of this office with us.”

But the clinching formula is that which the Form of Government imposes on the congregation: “Do you, the members of this church, acknowledge and receive this brother as a ruling elder (or deacon) and do you promise to yield him all that honor, encouragement, and obedience in the Lord to which ... the Constitution of this Church entitles him?”

At this point it seems proper to conclude that the Report bases its thesis on a mistaken view of Reformed Presbyterian government. The Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod does not distinguish between an elder and a deacon by the latter’s lack of ecclesiastical authority. On the contrary, it explicitly asserts this authority. The application to women-in the light of Scripture yet to be discussed-is automatic. Ignoring our constitution the Report continues, “If this distinction is maintained, there need be no question of setting women in authority over men by ordaining them as deacons.” But if this unconstitutional distinction were maintained, there would be no need or reason to ordain either men or women deacons. Ordination is induction into an authoritative order. This now returns the discussion from the ordination of women as deacons to the fundamental question of ordination.  (Dr. Gordon H. Clark, The Ordination of Women).

To be fair, Gordon Clark did concede a possible compromise that there could be a ministry of deaconesses as long as it was not an ordained office in the church.  That’s because, as he argued in the paper, deacons do exercise authority by administering the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper.  But Tim Keller got around this by "commissioning" both men and women as deacons.  He simply changed the language to get around the PCA book of common order.

This is the issue that troubles me about the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.  Like the RPCNA, the ARP affirms women not as a special category of lay ministry called deaconess but as a lifelong appointment to the office of the male diaconate, leaving the decision to each local session or congregation.  (See:  FORM OF GOVERNMENT of the ASSOCIATE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 2023, section 8.4.  P. 42).   Anyone wishing to join an ARP congregation that affirms women to the male office of the diaconate is required to agree to at least several vows.  The foremost vow that troubles me is:

Congregational vows to deacons:

“Do you, the members of this congregation, acknowledge and receive these fellow members as deacons, and do you promise to give them all the honor, encouragement, and assistance in the spirit of love to which their office, according to the Word of God and the Standards of this Church, entitles them?” (Synod 2021)  [See:  FORM OF GOVERNMENT of the ASSOCIATE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, 2023, P. 48

I am unable to acknowledge any woman as a legitimate appointment to the male only office of the diaconate.  Thus, I would be unable to take the vows of membership as well.  That's because, as you can see below, that I would be vowing to obey the church by accepting women as deacons.  That I could never do.

When a congregation votes on any particular issue, the vast majority of the time it is simply a rubber stamp of what the church officers have already decided.  That’s because if half of the congregation approves by a voice vote, it is a done deal and there can be no dissent from the floor or any discussion, particularly in very large churches.  So, for all practical purposes most sessions are run by an authoritarian style of leadership.  (See:  Imperious Presbyterianism, by Kevin Reed).  In order to become a member of an Associate Reformed Presbyterian session or congregation the inquirer must take the following vows:

i.  Do you profess that you are a sinner in the sight of God; that you deserve His punishment; that you are unable to save yourself; and that you are without hope of salvation except for God's love and mercy?

ii. Do you believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Savior of sinners; and do you receive and trust in Him alone for your salvation?

iii. Do you accept the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, as the written Word of God; and that it is the only perfect rule of faith and how to live?

iv.  Do you promise to trust in the guidance and strength of the Holy Spirit so that you can live all of life as a Christian, following the example set by Jesus Christ?

v.  Do you promise to exercise faithful stewardship of God's resources entrusted to you for the furtherance of God's Kingdom and purposes?

vi.  Do you accept that the doctrines and principles of the Standards of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church are founded upon the Scriptures?

vii.  In loving obedience, do you submit yourself to the government and discipline of this church, promising to seek the peace, purity, and prosperity of this congregation as long as you are a member of it?  (ARP Form of Government, pp. 25-26).

Vow number v is troublesome because it precedes the two vows that are linked to the promise to affirm women as part of the male diaconate.  So, I must tithe and support the church first, then consider if I want to vow to obey the church?  Vow number vi contradicts Westminster Confession 1:6 which says that the confession is deduced from the Bible by good and necessary consequence, not that the standards are founded on the Bible.  The word “founded” is a weasel word in my opinion.  If vow iii is taken at face value, then the church member has a moral obligation to oppose the church whenever the church violates the clear teaching of the Bible on doctrinal matters that are above matters of indifference or adiaphora.

The problem with ordaining women to any male office is that it is a direct violation of the Scriptural prohibition of women being in authority over men in the visible church.  (1 Timothy 2:12; 1 Corinthians 14:34; Titus 2:5; Genesis 3:16.  All proof texts are from the KJV).  A further problem for the innovationists is that John Calvin did not agree with ordaining women to male only offices in the church:

For my own part, though I do not deny that the order of deacons might sometimes be the nursery out of which presbyters were taken, yet I take Paul’s words as meaning, more simply, that they who have discharged this ministry in a proper manner are worthy of no small honour; because it is not a mean employment, but a highly honourable office. Now by this expression he intimates how much it is for the advantage of the Church to have this office discharged by choice men; because the holy discharge of it procures esteem and reverence.  (Commentary on 1 Timothy 3:13).

Furthermore, Calvin contradicts Thomas Schreiner’s argument that a missing pronoun makes the verse ambiguous enough to allow for women deacons:

Likewise the wives He means the wives both of deacons and of bishops, for they must be aids to their husbands in their office; which cannot be, unless their behavior excel that of others.

Let the deacons be Since he mentioned wives, he lays down the same injunction about deacons as he had formerly down about bishops; namely, that each of them — satisfied within having but one wife — shall set an example of a chaste and honorable father of a family, and shall keep his children and his whole house under holy discipline. And this refutes the error of those who understand this passage as referring to domestic servants.  (Calvin, 1 Timothy 3:11).

It is true that Calvin says that Phoebe had an office in the church but Calvin never calls Phoebe a deacon as Schreiner does in his article cited above.  (See:  Calvin, Romans 16:1).  The word for servant in the Bible is the same word as the word for deacon.  However, even if the Greek word is in the masculine gender, it does not necessarily refer to a male office of the diaconate according to the proponents of females being elected to the diaconate.

Lastly, I would like to respond to the charge that those who oppose the ordination of women to any church office as being mean-spirited and uncharitable.  In the light of the current situation where mainline Reformed denominations have in the past gone completely over to the social justice gospel of the temporal here and now, it seems to me that the compromises made for the sake of peace end up in the frog in the kettle analogy.  The frog does not realize that the water is boiling until it is too late to hop out of the pot.  Even the venerable and late presbyterian minister, Dr. R. C. Sproul was compromised early on in his vocation.  He admits that he was ordained with the United Presbyterian Church, which later became part of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. where women were indeed ordained as teaching elders.  Sproul by his own account disagreed with the ordination of women because of the biblical prohibition of women being in authority over men.  He tried to compromise by asking for an exception that he would not participate in the ordination services for women but that he would submit to their authority after they had been ordained.  The liberals would not compromise and forced Sproul to resign peaceably.  (See:  Table Talk:  Women’s Ordination and R.C. Sproul).

I have recently thought again about becoming a member of First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina.  I had forgotten about an earlier study I had done in regards to the issue of the ordination of women when I was considering joining the ARP church plant in Lexington, South Carolina.  I wrote a letter to the pastor of the church plant, whose name is Jeff Tell.   You can read the three part series on my blog at:  Reasonable Christian:  Should Women Be Ordained to Ministry?  Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.  (See also:  An Open Letter to Pastor Jeff Tell). 

As proof that the ARP has problems with liberalism, I can cite and even quote a minister who helped to craft the resolutions for the ordination of women as deacons in the ARP.  His name is Dr. William B. Evans, who resigned from the ARP and was received in good standing into the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. not too long ago.

Although I disagree with the doctrine of common grace as outlined by the three points of common grace, and I disagree with the free offer of the gospel, I do like the preaching and teaching of R.C. Sproul, Derek Thomas, and Neil Stewart.  Probably the most conservative Reformed pulpit in my area is First Presbyterian Church in Columbia, SC.  But I cannot join there or support that church due to the fact that it would violate my conscience and the written word of God to vow to uphold an unbiblical mandate for women to be ordained to the male office of the diaconate.  While Dr. Stewart did say to me in private that he also disagrees with the ordination of women to the diaconate, apparently, he is contradicting himself.  I say that because he has for several times presided over the ordination of deacons which included two or three women.  The same can be said of the two previous pastors from the Ligonier background, namely Derek Thomas and Sinclaire Ferguson.  Both men read the ordination vows for the ordination of both males and females to the office of deacon.  Is the ordination of women just a matter of adiaphora or indifference?  I do not agree.  Also, if women are not in authority in the office of the diaconate, neither are any of the men.  Why ordain anyone to the office of deacon at all?

As Dr. Gordon H. Clark pointed out, if there is no authority over anyone in the congregation, why ordain either men or women?  R.C. Sproul was willing to submit to women in authority, unfortunately, and he openly admitted as much in the linked article from Table Talk.  This is disappointing because doctrine matters.  Finally, since excommunication and the keys to the kingdom are exercised by teaching elders, ruling elders, and--by delegation to deacons in the matter of serving the outward signs of the Lord’s supper--deacons are likewise in authority over members of the congregation as well as visitors.

In the modern era it is difficult to keep unqualified persons from partaking of the Lord’s supper or table in very large congregations unless the excommunicated person is well known.  For all practical purposes, church membership is a useless endeavor because the church member has no say in what the elders and church officers decide to do in the session or in the presbytery.  Church officers lord it over the congregation, and those who have any legitimate disagreements are invited to peaceably withdraw or to peaceably not join, which is what Dr. Neil Stewart suggested in my case.  However, since I believe in the priesthood of believers, even a lay person has the moral duty to disagree publicly with equivocation, compromise, and dissimulation wherever it happens in supposedly Evangelical or Reformed churches or denominations.  The peace of the church depends on church discipline both individually and corporately.  Unfortunately, most denominations are more concerned about sex scandals, their political standing with the government, and individual immorality than with the biblical mandate to continually reform the church according to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Since I am unable in good conscience to agree with ordaining women, I cannot vow to support any woman who is wrongly ordained to a position of authority over men in any church office, whether it be teaching elder, ruling elder or deacon.  The slippery slope might be a fallacious way of arguing, but it seems to me that the example of William B. Evans makes it apparent that the agenda of liberal presbyters in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church is to finally get to the point of ordaining women to the offices of teaching elder and ruling elder.  Why else would Evans join the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. and be accepted into membership by women presbyters?  It is good that R.C. Sproul left the Presbyterian Church U.S.  But why did he try to compromise to stay?  A better question is why did Sinclaire Ferguson, Derek Thomas, and Neil Stewart all ordain women to a male only office of deacon in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church?  Also, why did Sproul invite these men to be part of the Ligonier Ministries if he was opposed to women in church offices?  The answer is that Sproul and Ligonier compromised on this issue and said that deacons do not exercise authority.  But if that is so, why did Stephen preach to the Jews, causing him to be martyred?  (Acts 6:5-8:2 KJV)

The qualifications for deacons found in 1 Timothy 3:8–13 overlap in many ways with the qualifications for elders given in verses 1–7. Those who are ordained as deacons must be honest and run their households well. There has been debate within the Reformed tradition as to whether Paul allows for women to be deacons, but regardless of the position one takes, the Apostle stresses that deacons must “not [be] greedy for dishonest gain” (v. 8).

"The Vocation of Deacon."  Ligonier. 

The problem, as I pointed out above, is that the office of deacon is not a matter of adiaphora.  Stephen was chosen because he was able to preach and to perform miracles.  There were no female deacons chosen.  Gordon H. Clark was correct again. 

The Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church has a position paper arguing for ordaining women to the male only office of deacon, but says that ordaining women to the offices of teaching elder or ruling elder is forbidden because it would split the church.  That's because those who could not in good conscience vow to support the authority of women would be forced out:

First of all, the unity of the church is threatened in that moves to ordain women to the offices of minister and elder in the context of Presbyterian polity will eventually result in the exclusion of those who cannot, for reasons of conscience, assent to the new policy. W. B. Evans has written:

While traditionalists have often been tolerant of progressive thinking, they themselves are often not tolerated once women’s ordination is instantiated in a denomination. That has been the trend in the Church of Scotland, the PCUSA and elsewhere. The pattern here is for conservatives to be grandfathered for a time, but sooner or later ordination requirements are rewritten to include support for women’s ordination. This is due primarily, not to liberal meanspiritedness, but to the logic of Reformed polity. The offices of minister and elder are the foundation of the polity, and everybody has to own the polity, to accept the ground rules of the game. Reformed churches cannot tolerate the presence of those who would challenge, even implicitly, the legitimacy of a large group of officeholders.32

Women in the Life of the Church:   A Position Paper Approved by the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.  June 2005.  P. 14.

Ironically, as stated above, Evans left the ARP and joined the PCUSA because he could not tolerate the influx of ministers from the Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, NC.  Those ministers, according to Evans, oppose the ordination of women deacons.  I am unable to become a member of any ARP church that ordains women deacons because of the vow that new members must take to support women deacons.

What's worse is that Evans actually lied about his agenda, which was to ordain women to all offices of the church.  Evans is the author of the quote in the ARP position paper above.  Will the ARP split over this issue?  Maybe not if the ARP is willing to reverse its unbiblical position to ordain women to the office of deacon. 

 

Soli Deo Gloria.

Charlie J. Ray

 

Further Resources:

Women in the Life of the Church.  A Position Paper Approved by the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.  June 2005.

PCA Historical Center.  Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod.  OVERTURE N:  RECONSIDERATION OF WOMEN DEACONS.  [156th General Synod Minutes, 16 June 1978, pp. 133-134; Documents of Synod, pp. 156-157.]

PCA Historical Center.  Dr. Gordon H. Clark.  The Ordination of Women.  (Dr. Clark’s view prevailed and to this day, the Presbyterian Church in America does not ordain women to any church office, including the office of deacon.  The RPCES merged with the PCA in 1978 or so and shortly thereafter, Dr. Clark withdrew and joined the Covenant Presbytery.)

 Did the RPCES have Deaconesses? Yes and No.  Posted on November 22, 2021, by Zachary Groff.  By Jared Nelson | November 22, 2021.

The Case Against Deaconesses.  Robert Vandoodewaard.  Table Talk:  February 2024.  

Dr. William B. Evans:  The Ecclesial Presbyterian.  A Change in Ecclesial Affiliation for the Ecclesial Calvinist!

Reasonable Christian:  Should Women Be Ordained to Ministry?  Part 1Part 2Part 3.  (See also:  An Open Letter to Pastor Jeff Tell). 

R. Scott Clark:  Heidelblog:  Two Conference Talks Worth Hearing: Ligon Duncan And Tim Keller On Women And The Diaconate  [Toward the end of this audio in the question and answer session, Tim Keller openly said that if the BCO did not forbid it that he and his session would ordain women as deacons.  Listen at the 1:18:00 mm to the end.  @presbycast.  You have to ask why there are no men in Keller's church if the church is so large?  Maybe his pragmatism only works on women?]

A Historical and Biblical Examination of Women Deacons.  Brian Schwertley 

The PCA Goes Back to Where It Started: Women's Ordination.  Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra.  The Aquila Report.  June 29, 2016.

The Problem with Commissioning Deaconnesses.  Zachary Garris.  May 1, 2025.

Support Reasonable Christian Ministries with your generous donation.