Return to Main Page
Site Index

Trouble with drop box click here for help     Printing Instructions for Articles
Back to Index to Gillespie Discussion

Discussion of George Gillespie's Wholesome Severity Reconciled with Christian Liberty
Re: WF: Questions for thought, section 1 
Subject: Re: WF: Questions for thought, section 1
From: PProctor@MAF.Org (Phil Proctor)
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 97 07:10:00 UTC

>In "To the Christian & Courteous Reader," Gillespie claims
>that the furor sweeping London & England in 1645 was of
>Satan's devices.  Is he simply speaking hyperbolically, or
>is there good reason to think that the divisions in the
>church in that day were Satanic in origin?  How does that
>speak to the state of the church in our day?

Hetherington, in "History of the Westminster Assembly" writes: "From about the 
close of the year 1644 till about April1645, the Assembly was chiefly engaged in 
the Independent controversy, receiving the written reasons of dissent, and 
returning written answers to these reasons"(244).  In light of his influential 
position  in the Westminster Assembly, I would say that Gillespie is not 
speaking hyperbolically at all, but is in the thick of the battle for the heart 
and soul of the Westminster Confession.  I would also posit that Gillespie is 
speaking in a sense somewhat broader than the ecclesiastical.  1646 was the year 
that the king retreated from Cromwell's parliamentary forces to seek refuge in 
the Scottish army.  Given the tough position that the Scottish commisioners 
found themselves in, having signed the Solemn League and Covenant which bound 
them to uphold an anti-Scottish king over against Cromwell's friendly overtures 
toward Scotland, the consciences of men were being sorely tested, and their 
character proved.  In the midst of both religious (Independents) and political 
(Cromwell) divisiveness, I'm sure Satan's hand was *very* evident to Gillespie.  
Here was an oportunity to unite the kingdoms of Scotland, Ireland, England, and 
Wales under a Godly form of worship, and political and religious turmoil was 
threatening to wreck the entire project before it was properly begun.  The 
divisions in both church and state were undoubtedly Satanic, having threatened 
to derail the progress of the Assembly and having, from the standpoint of 
history, completely overshadowed the Westminster Assembly.  

How does it speak to the church today?  

>those of the godly  who have their senses exercised to discern good and evil, 
>know that liberty of heresy and schism is no part of the liberty of conscience 
>which Christ has purchased to us at so dear a rate.

>As if both politicians and divines had been in a great error when they said 
>that the end and use of Magistracy is to make bonum hominem, as well as bonum 
>civem, a good man as well as a good commonwealth's man. 

Gillespie rightly points to 2 issues: 1) The difference between liberty of 
conscience and heresy, and (2) the role of the godly magistrate in this issue.  
Separation of church and state is a *grave* mistake, in that it limits the 
government to bonum civem and the church to bonum hominem.
1) There's something pernicious about Robert Schuller that is not so pernicious 
about Charles Stanley.  While I disagree with both, I fully expect to meet 
Stanley in glory, while I fully expect to see Schuller revealed as anti-Christ.  
The grounds of heresy/differing consciences need to be outlined (and I expect 
Gillespie to do as much, given the title).
2) The role of the civil magistrate has been abdicated by the North American 
government in this regard.  Given such, we are left with ecclesiastical anarchy 
rather than liberty of conscience.  "A house divided against itself cannot 
stand", and this is certainly the case in the North American Christian movement.  
Heresy is a meaningless term without the ability to authoritatively pronounce 
such.  Truth is *objective*, and doctrinal positions *can* be measured against a 
standard guide of faith and practice.  We in the North American church have lost 
the ability to objectively declare Schuller and Tilton to be heretical, and to 
have any authority in doing so.  I'm not sure that this lost authority can be 
regained with the current governmental system.

Jud 17:6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that 
which was] right in his own eyes.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
phil proctor