Reasoning with Satan betrays an open posture toward following his schemes and designs. Jesus admits no discussion, but declines the temptation with a decisive appeal to Scripture. By this, Jesus intimates that God has spoken, so that nothing more needs to be said. This is a closed posture toward temptation—the only godly posture toward sin that we can take.

When we compare the temptation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 against Jesus’ temptation in Matthew 4, we discover a number of fascinating contrasts. I have written about some of them here:

That our spirituality should be guided by faith isn’t necessarily a controversial point among evangelical Christians. Where this becomes controversial, though, is when we extend this logic to chart out how to think about these Presbyterian “quirks.”

The title of this class captures what most people think when they first learn about Sabbatarianism, Psalms-singing, and a rejection of images of Christ, three distinctive areas of Presbyterian piety: That’s quirky! These distinctives raise a lot of questions, and, even with people who have been Christians for a long time, they struggle to understand just why Presbyterians insist on these elements to such a degree.
In many areas, Presbyterians might simply seem traditional in their style. Even if an evangelical Christian prefers more “contemporary” worship styles, musical selections, and creative expressions in their worship services, they probably have some frame of reference to understand a “traditional” style that doesn’t necessarily go in on those approaches to worship. When it comes to these “quirks” however, many evangelical Christians are shocked to learn that Presbyterians consider these issues to be of great moral significance.
This is where we see a difference, then, between a traditional approach to piety and worship, and a confessional Presbyterian approach. These issues are not nostalgic pining for “the good old days,” but deeply formed biblical convictions.
In this class, however, our goal will not be to defend these distinctive beliefs and practices. There are other resources on those issues. In particular, R. Scott Clark has collected a stellar set of resources on the Sabbath, Psalms-singing, and images of Christ.
Instead, in this class, my goal is to offer a positive vision to help you imagine what Reformed and Presbyterian piety and worship might be like if you began to lean into these practices. My goal is that, even if you are not (yet!) persuaded that these practices are biblical, you might at least have a positive imagination about how these practices might reform your relationship with God. Or, at the very least, I hope that after this class you won’t find these beliefs and practices so quirky!
The Foundation: A Biblical and Spiritual Piety
The biblical foundation for this approach is in 2 Corinthians 5:7: “for we walk by faith, not by sight.” This verse captures not merely an encouragement that there is a world beyond this life that we cannot see; more, it captures an entire ethos for living. John Owen writes this:
There are, therefore, two ways or degrees of beholding the glory of Christ, which are constantly distinguished in the Scripture. The one is by faith in this world, which is ‘the evidence of things not seen’; the other is by sight, or immediate vision in eternity, ‘We walk by faith and not by sight’ (2 Cor. 5:7)….No man shall ever behold the glory of Christ by sight hereafter, who does not in some measure behold it by faith here in this world. Grace is a necessary preparation for glory, and faith for sight.1
If the essence of Christian piety is to behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), this is something that is (1) by faith, (2) spiritual—that is, by the Spirit, and (3) through the Word of God. That is, our spirituality is guided not by what we can see, but by faith in God’s Word.
That our spirituality should be guided by faith isn’t necessarily a controversial point among evangelical Christians. Where this becomes controversial, though, is when we extend this logic to chart out how to think about these Presbyterian “quirks.”
The Sabbath
I’d like to draw our attention to two important and surprising texts about the Sabbath. First:
[12] And the LORD said to Moses, [13] “You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, ‘Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths, for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I, the LORD, sanctify you. [14] You shall keep the Sabbath, because it is holy for you. Everyone who profanes it shall be put to death. Whoever does any work on it, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. [15] Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death. [16] Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever. [17] It is a sign forever between me and the people of Israel that in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.’” (Ex. 31:12–17)
When the Lord insists that his people keep the Sabbath, he does so by insisting that the Sabbath is a sign. A sign is something visible that points us to something else—in this case, to something invisible. Specifically, the Lord teaches that the Sabbath is a (visible) sign that he (invisibly) sanctifies us.
Sabbath-keeping, then, is a sign about our spirituality, but not a sign of what we are doing for God. That is, Sabbath-keeping is not a weekly method for virtue signaling (“I thank you, Lord, that I’m not like those immoral people who don’t keep Sabbath!”). Rather, Sabbath-keeping is a sign of what God does for us. We rest as a testimony to the watching world of what God is doing in and through us, to sanctify us. It is a powerful reminder amongst ourselves, as well as to the watching world, that we cease from work because we believe that God is at work (John 5:17).
The second text is an important corollary:
[13] “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; [14] then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” (Is. 58:13–14)
God teaches us that we learn to delight in him by learning to delight in his Sabbath. That is, the Sabbath is a means of God’s grace toward us. As a sign, the Sabbath proclaims to the watching world that God is sanctifying us. But, as a means of grace, the Sabbath is the venue in which God teaches us to delight in him.
It is in this context that we must understand the strict limitations for the Lord’s Day:
WLC Q. 117. How is the sabbath or the Lord’s day to be sanctified?
A. The sabbath or Lord’s day is to be sanctified by an holy resting all the day, not only from such works as are at all times sinful, but even from such worldly employments and recreations as are on other days lawful; and making it our delight to spend the whole time (except so much of it as is to be taken up in works of necessity and mercy) in the public and private exercises of God’s worship: and, to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose and seasonably dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day.
We are to spend the entire Lord’s day in public and private exercises of worship—and we are to duly prepare our hearts and our affairs to enter into that worship as much as possible—not to restrict ourselves. Rather, the Lord’s Day is an invitation to delight in the Lord by worshiping him. This delight isn’t in something that is material,  visible, or earthly, but in something that is spiritual, invisible, and heavenly.
As Thomas Boston observes, those who live according to the flesh choke on this spiritual delicacy of the Sabbath:
Read More

The danger of legalism lurks wherever we would relax God’s law from its high-as-heaven standard, dragging it down to a standard low enough for us to keep. Beware the leaven of the Pharisees! The painful truth is that none of us can reach God’s perfect standard. Rather, before his standard, we must tremble, crying out, “Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24).

In every age, the church must be vigilant to avoid legalism. We must never be like the Pharisees, who “tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger” (Matt. 23:24). God tells us that his commandments are not burdensome (1 John 5:3), but to add to God’s commandments would indeed be burdensome.
The danger of legalism is one that all true ministers of the gospel of Christ must take with the utmost seriousness. Nevertheless, do we really understand what Christ was condemning when he warned us to “Watch and beware the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matt. 16:6)?
In this article, I want to raise the question of whether we understand the spirit and nature of legalism correctly, and to explore whether this misunderstanding may seriously skew our gospel ministry.
The Legalism of the Pharisees: Not too Strict, but too Lax
What exactly was the legalism that the Pharisees were teaching? A common thought is that the Pharisees were legalistic by being overly strict about the law, while the Sadducees were overly lax about the law. That is, the Pharisees are commonly characterized as legalists, and the Sadducees as libertines. While this view is both common and convenient as a way of categorizing the two groups, it does not match either the historical records or the biblical records, especially regarding the Pharisees.
Both Jewish and Christian historians have recognized that the Pharisees were trying to simplify the law, rather than complicating it. So, the Jewish scholar Alexander Guttmann writes:
Emerging from the ranks of the people, the rabbis spoke in terms intelligible to the populace and were therefore able to lead the people in accordance with their teachings, a feat the Prophets had been unable to accomplish. Uncompromising idealists, the Prophets demanded perfection and the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth in their own time; therefore, they were doomed to failure. Prophetic Judaism never became a reality but remained only an ideal, a goal, like Plato’s Republic. The rabbis were idealists, too, but they were at the same time pedagogues. In guiding their people, they took the realities of life (among them the weakness of human beings) into consideration. They upheld the Torah as the divine code, but at the same time they recognized the need for harmonizing the Torah with the ever-changing realities of life.1
The mission of the Pharisees was not to create a set of extra rules to prop themselves up—even if this may have been the eventual result. Rather, the mission of the Pharisees was to boil down the law to principles, practices, and techniques that normal people could understand and keep.
To be sure, the Pharisees were legalists. Their legalism, however, was the result of trying to reduce the law down to something manageable in the lives of the people. This did not leave them to become too strict, but, far too lax in comparison to the fullness of what God required. 
The Bare Text of the Law vs. The Full Ethics of the Moral Law
Old Testament scholar Gordon Wenham helps to see this point by observing that the text of the law does not give us a complete accounting for the fullness of what the moral law actually requires. Or, as Wenham puts it, there is a “gap” between the bare text of the law in the Bible and the fullness of the ethics (moral law) required by the Bible.2 So, the bare text of the law “sets a minimum standard of behaviour, which if transgressed attracts sanction,” but the “ethical ceiling is as high as heaven itself, for a key principle of biblical ethics is the imitation of God. Man made in God’s image must act in a godlike way: ‘Be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy’ (Lev. 19:2).”3
From this, we can see that the legalism of the Pharisees manifested itself in two ways: (1) they sought to keep the bare text of the law, rather than the fullness of the biblical ethic (moral law) of what it means to imitate God; and (2) they boiled down the full biblical ethic of the law into manageable principles that seemed to make the law possible to keep.
New Testament scholar J. Gresham Machen makes this point powerfully:
The legalism of the Pharisees, with its regulation of the minute details of life, was not really making the Law too hard to keep; it was really making it too easy. Jesus said to His disciples, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.” The truth is, it is easier to cleanse the outside of the cup than it is to cleanse the heart. If the Pharisees had recognized that the Law demands not only the observance of external rules but also and primarily mercy and justice and love for God and men, they would not have been so readily satisfied with the measure of their obedience, and the Law would then have fulfilled its great function of being a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. A low view of law leads to legalism in religion; a high view of law makes a man a seeker after grace.4
Read More
1 Alexander Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: A Chapter in the History of the Halakhah from Ezra to Judah I (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), xii. Cited in Moisés Silva, “The Place of Historical Reconstruction in New Testament Criticism,” in Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986), 120. I am indebted to Silva’s article for much of what I have written about the nature of legalism here.
2 Gordon J. Wenham, “The Gap between Law and Ethics in the Bible,” Journal of Jewish Studies 48, no. 1 (1997): 17–29.
3 Wenham, “The Gap Between Law and Ethics in the Bible,” 18, 26.
4 J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul’s Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1921), 179.

As our roots go deep in Christ, the fruit of our lives is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22–23). This is an important point. By repentance, we are not making another resolution to “do better next time.” Rather, by repentance, we are asking God to “create in me a clean heart…and renew a right spirit within me” (Ps. 51:10). We are turning from our sin by asking God not only to forgive us from our sins, but to change our lives.

When Matthew abruptly introduces us to John the Baptist, he focuses his remarks on the central theme of John’s message: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 3:2).
Certainly, John said more as he preached in the wilderness; however, this summarization is not an out-of-context soundbite from John’s preaching. Central to John’s ministry and message was the exhortation to repent, in view of the coming kingdom—that is, in view of the coming King. Consider:

John baptized people as they were “confessing their sins” (Matt. 3:5)
John turned away the Pharisees and the Sadducees who did not “bear fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matt. 3:8)
John defined his own baptism as a baptism “with water for repentance” (Matt. 3:11)

God sent John into the wilderness to prepare the way for the coming of King Jesus, and those preparations required repentance.
What, then, is repentance?
The word for repentance in Greek (μετάνοια; metanoia) carries a basic meaning of changing one’s mind. The common word for repentance in Hebrew (שׁוּב; shûb) has a basic meaning of turning—turning away from one thing, and turning toward another.
So, repentance is more than coming to a different opinion in one’s mind about something. Repentance is a whole turning away from our sin, and turning toward Christ.
It’s hard to beat the answer given in the Westminster Shorter Catechism:
Q. 87. What is repentance unto life?A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth, with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.
Read More

When we compare the description in Revelation of the millennium with the Jesus’ own descriptions of binding and casting out Satan in the Gospels, one crucial point emerges: this is a work that Jesus accomplishes during his earthly ministry, not later. By Jesus’ two great victories over Satan during his temptation and his cross, Jesus shatters the vice-grip of our Enemy over the nations.

Bible-believing Christians have often disagreed about the significance of “the thousand years” (sometimes called, “the millennium”) that John writes about in the book of Revelation:
Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. [2] And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, [3] and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.Rev. 20:1–3)
The big question is not only when this “thousand years” has been/is/will be, but what will happen during this “thousand years.” Notably, John tells us that during this time, Satan will be bound “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer.”
What should we expect from the binding of Satan?
Different Millennial Views on the Binding and Casting Out of Satan
Premillennialists take this thousand years as a reference to a Messianic reign of Jesus after his return, but before the glorification of God’s people in the eternal state. I had a dear, premillennialist mentor who would often remark to me, “I look around the world, and it seems pretty clear that Satan is still loose and up to his old tricks.” For the premillennialists, Satan’s binding cannot come until after King Jesus has returned.
Postmillennialists understand the thousand years as something that will take place after the eventual transformation of society by the gospel of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, they believe that the leaven of the gospel will so thoroughly permeate our world that “all [will be] leavened” (Matt. 13:33). Once the entire world is brought under the dominion and Lordship of Jesus Christ, there will be one thousand years of peace and prosperity, during which time Satan is bound from harassing God’s people on earth. The millennium comes immediately before Christ’s return, at the conclusion of the thousand years.
Amillennialists see the thousand years as a reference to the age of the New Testament church. The “thousand years” is not a precise amount of time, but, as a large, round number that functions as a symbol for an undefined long period of time. For amillennialists, the key phrase for understanding the nature of Satan’s binding has to do with the definition John gives about the quality of this binding: “so that he might not deceive the nations any longer” (Rev. 20:3).
Amillennialists take this as the essential difference between the Old Testament and New Testament: Satan’s dominion over the nations has been shattered, so that the gospel of Jesus is now drawing people from every tribe, language, people, and nation into his kingdom (Rev. 5:9). Certainly, God drew a few Gentiles into the nation of Israel during the Old Testament. The degree to which God accomplishes this now in the New Testament era, however, is entirely unprecedented.
Amillennialism is my own understanding of the nature of the millennium. In this post, I want to focus on two important texts the help us to interpret the binding and casting out. I will argue that letting Scripture interpret Scripture drives us toward holding an amillennial view of the “thousand years” of Revelation 20.
The Binding of the “Strong Man” (Matt. 12:29)
The first text comes in the middle of the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus gives us some important insight into the progressive conquest of his kingdom into this world:
Or how can someone enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house.(Matt. 12:29)
What, precisely, does this binding of the strong man refer? Brandon Crowe makes a compelling case that it was Jesus’ successfully resisting Satan’s temptation at the beginning of his ministry that marks the binding of Satan. He writes:

The American Presbyterian Church began in 1706, with the founding of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, especially through the leadership of Francis Makemie (the “father of American Presbyterianism”).9 The first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA took place in 1789, with four synods: New York and New Jersey (four presbyteries), Philadelphia (five presbyteries) Virginia (four presbyteries), and the Carolinas (three presbyteries).

Note: These are the lecture notes for the first class of an 8-week series that I am teaching at Harvest Community Church, called “What Does it Mean to be Presbyterian?” This is by no means comprehensive, but a quick overview of some of the key historical moments that have led to the development of the Presbyterianism that we experience today. This survey does not include the history of my own denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA); Lord willing, I will lay out a brief survey of that history in a future lecture/post.
To understand Presbyterianism, it helps to understand some of the history that shaped it. Presbyterianism seeks to be thoroughly biblical; however, being “biblical” cannot happen in a vacuum. The questions we seek to answer from the Bible are always answered in response to objections, aberrations, and innovations posed from within the church or by the wider culture. Knowing the history of Presbyterianism helps to explain why we take certain things more seriously than someone might imagine.
Origins of Presbyterian Church Government
The word “Presbyterian” comes from the Greek word πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros), meaning “elder.” Accordingly, Presbyterian church government is elder-ruled church government, as we see clearly taught in the New Testament: “Let the elders [πρεσβύτεροι] who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching” (1 Tim. 5:17).
Nevertheless, the origins of Presbyterian church government stretch further back into history than the New Testament, but began in the Old Testament. We see elders serving the nation of Israel from the time of Moses onward:

“Go and gather the elders of Israel together and say to them, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me, saying…’” (Ex. 3:16)
Then Moses called all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go and select lambs for yourselves according to your clans, and kill the Passover lamb….” (Ex. 12:21)
And the LORD said to Moses, “Pass on before the people, taking with you some of the elders of Israel, and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go.” (Ex. 17:5)
“Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, and worship from afar.” (Ex. 24:1)
“And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the LORD, and the bull shall be killed before the LORD.” (Lev. 4:15)
Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him, and took some of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. And as soon as the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied. But they did not continue doing it. (Num. 11:25)
Now Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying, “Keep the whole commandment that I command you today.” (Deut. 27:1)

The New Testament (especially the Gospels and Acts) reveals that this system of elder-rule continued through the time of Jesus. Particular congregation of Jewish worshipers met in synagogues, which were governed by Ruling Elders.1 All the elders ruled over the synagogue, so that sometimes these elders are called the “rulers of the synagogue,” while other times one is singled out as the “ruler of the synagogue,” signifying the one who presided over the ecclesiastical business of the synagogue:

Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name, and seeing him, he fell at his feet…. (Mark 5:22)
But the ruler of the synagogue, indignant because Jesus had healed on the Sabbath, said to the people, “There are six days in which work ought to be done. Come on those days and be healed, and not on the Sabbath day.” (Luke 13:14)
After the reading from the Law and the Prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent a message to them, saying, “Brothers, if you have any word of encouragement for the people, say it.” (Acts 13:15)
Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)

In the synagogues, the rulers all had equal standing and rank, and the ruler of the synagogue (sometimes called an overseer/bishop or president of the synagogue) was considered the primus inter pares, the “first among equals.” The ruler of the synagogue was distinguished by moderating the elder meetings, and by reading the Scriptures and leading the prayers in the synagogue worship services.2
Also, we can see evidence for a graded court system. While each synagogue had a bench of elders to oversee the local congregation, there was also a regional governing council, called the “Presbytery,” and the high council, called the “Sanhedrin.”3 The word “Presbytery” (i.e., council of elders) appears in three places in the New Testament:

When day came, the assembly of the elders [πρεσβυτέριον; presbyterion] of the people gathered together, both chief priests and scribes…. (Luke 22:66)
“…as the high priest and the whole council of elders [πρεσβυτέριον; presbyterion] can bear me witness….” (Acts 22:5)
Do not neglect the gift you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders [πρεσβυτερίου; presbyteriou] laid their hands on you. (1 Tim. 4:14)

Notice carefully the close connection between the Jewish synagogue polity and the Presbyterian church polity that we still use today. We consider both Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders to be equal, as members of the one biblical office of elder; however, we do make a distinction between those who “rule well” only, and those who “labor in preaching and teaching” in addition to ruling (1 Tim. 5:17), by their leadership in worship, as well as their moderating over the Session of the church. Finally, the Jewish graded court system of Synagogue, Presbytery, and Sanhedrin corresponds to our Presbyterian graded courts system of Session, Presbytery, and General Assembly.
The New Testament Apostles did not make up their church government out of thin air. They carefully carried forward the principles that had been long established for God’s church from early in the Old Testament. Our polity is inherited from the Old Testament, not invented.4
Evidence from the Apostolic Fathers
The earliest surviving Christian documents from the early church outside the New Testament were written by two figures: Clement of Rome (35–99 AD) and Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108 AD). The writings of Clement of Rome urge obedience to the “elders/presbyters”:

“You, therefore, who laid the foundation of the revolt must submit to the presbyters and accept discipline leading to repentance, bending the knees of your heart.” (1 Clement 57:1)5

The writings of Ignatius of Antioch are similar, urging obedience to the “bishop and presbyters”:

“It is essential, therefore, that you continue your current practice and do nothing without the bishop, but be subject also to the council of presbyters as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we so live.” (Ignatius to the Trallians, 2:2)6

From what we have seen about the continuity between the Jewish system and the New Testament church, it is clear what these offices were. On one hand, it was possible to speak of the presbyters as a unified group, just as we speak of the elders or the session. On the other hand, it is also possible to distinguish the bishop (lit., “overseer”) from the other presbyters if we are describing a pastor (Teaching Elder) and the other Ruling Elders. There is no evidence whatsoever that bishop at this time meant what it quickly came to mean in the Roman Catholic Church, as a hierarchical overseer of a group of churches, without pastoring any particular church himself.
(Continental) Reformed Churches vs. (Scottish/Irish) Presbyterian Churches
Reformation in the church always happens gradually and sequentially. No generation can reform everything in need of reformation at once. So, Luther and the first generation of Reformers restored the church’s confidence in the authority of Scripture, and the gospel of justification by faith alone. Calvin and the second generation of Reformers worked through a fuller vision for Christianity and church life, especially in the midst of the unique situation in Geneva. While the continental Reformed churches have many similarities with Presbyterian polity, most of their foundational documents were formed in an early period of the Reformation.
It was the Scottish Reformation that pioneered the enduring biblical vision of fully Presbyterian church polity. Under the leadership of John Knox, the Church of Scotland drew up the First Book of Discipline, published in 1560. Then after John Knox’s death in 1572, the Church of Scotland published the Second Book of Discipline in 1578, which had abiding significance and influence. Finally, the Westminster Assembly published an important guide for church government in 1645, called The Form of Presbyterial Church Government. In each of these books, the overriding goal was to draw out and apply biblical principles to guide the life of the church. Some of these Scottish Presbyterians migrated to the United States, forming two streams of Scottish Presbyterian traditions: the Covenanters (such as the Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America), and the Seceders (such as the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church).7
The majority of the church fathers for the broadest stream of American Presbyterianism (including denominations like the Presbyterian Church in the USA, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and the Presbyterian Church in America) came from Ulster Presbyterians from Northern Ireland.8 The American Presbyterian Church began in 1706, with the founding of the Presbytery of Philadelphia, especially through the leadership of Francis Makemie (the “father of American Presbyterianism”).9 The first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the USA took place in 1789, with four synods: New York and New Jersey (four presbyteries), Philadelphia (five presbyteries) Virginia (four presbyteries), and the Carolinas (three presbyteries).10
Old Side / New Side Controversy
One of the earliest controversies in the American Presbyterian Church has come to be known as the Old Side / New Side Controversy. This controversy grew out of issues surrounding the First Great Awakening. Three main issues emerged from this controversy. The first had to do with a disagreement with confessional fidelity vs. piety. Although these two issues are not necessarily at odds with one another, Old Side ministers sought to keep the church free from doctrinal error by insisting upon “strict subscription” to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. New Side ministers, on the other hand, sought to emphasize a warmer kind of piety, and they argued for evaluating ministerial candidates on the basis of “religious experience.”11
The second was related, and had to do with the methods of ministerial training. This controversy centered around a theological seminary called the Log College, which was founded in 1727 by William Tennent Sr. While Old Side ministers favored a more traditional (and more doctrinally rigorous) training at more established schools back in Scotland, New Side ministers set up the Log College as an attempt to establish a school for theological training in the new world. While this was not a problem per se,  Hart and Muether explain that “the school was also the creation of the Tennent family and nurtured an introspective and enthusiastic piety among its students that could lead to…excesses of religious experience….From the perspective of strict subscriptionists, Log College was also clearly on the wrong side of debates about ministerial qualifications.”12
The third issue had to do with itinerant preaching ministries during the First Great Awakening. At the center of the First Great Awakening in America was a man named George Whitefield. Whitefield was an Anglican, evangelical preacher who traveled through both England and the United States, preaching in the open air and in any churches who would welcome him. He was a man of extraordinary preaching gifts, and a number of people professed conversion to Christianity under his preaching in the early 18th century. New Side ministers were eager to invite Whitefield into their pulpits, while Old Side ministers believed that churches should hear from their own pastors, not from unaccountable itinerant preachers.13
To this day, Presbyterians still wrestle with questions about confessional subscription, ministerial training, and formal vs. informal ministry methods. On one side are those who advocate for purity of doctrine and the simple use of the biblical means of grace, while on the other side are those who advocate for religious experience and innovative methods for reaching the lost.
Old School / New School Controversy
About one hundred years later, the Second Great Awakening led to another controversy in the Presbyterian Church. The origins of this controversy stem from 1801, when the Presbyterians and the Congregationalists adopted “The Plan of Union,” which sought to join forces between the two denominations for the more rapid expansion of evangelism and church planting efforts as America moved west. This required a significant downplaying of the confessional distinctives of Presbyterians, especially through the approval of Charles Finney as Presbyterian minister in 1824.14
Once again, the “old” in this controversy favored a more traditional, confessional Presbyterian approach to ministry, while the “new” were open to innovations—and Finney introduced a number of New School innovations. Finney attempted to boil evangelistic revivals down to a science of psychological, emotional, and spiritual manipulation, using techniques such as altar calls and the anxious bench.15 His theological innovations were more significant, since Finney denied the doctrine of original sin.16 This doctrine was an important Finney’s practice, since he wrote that “a revival is not a miracle, or dependent on a miracle in any sense. It is a purely philosophic [i.e., scientific] result of the right use of the constituted means.”17
This denial of original sin extended beyond Finney alone into the Congregational Church of the time, causing significant divisions between the Old School ministers who wanted to protect the biblical doctrines (as summarized in the Westminster Standards) and biblically-regulated methods of worship and ministry, and the New School ministers who wanted to introduce new doctrines and methods for achieving the “results” of ministers like Finney.18
Once again, we see confessional standards and formality of ministry patterns forming the lines of this division. Here, the theological error is more pronounced, with an outright denial of original sin. We should recognize that innovations in worship and in the methods of ministry are not theologically neutral. The Old School ministers who (like the Old Side ministers before them) insisted upon the simple use of the biblical means of grace in worship and evangelism clearly saw the theological and confessional problems with those who innovated new approaches to ministry.
The Modernist Controversy
The Modernist Controversy takes us forward yet another hundred years in American Presbyterian church history. Once again, the Modernist Controversy deals with a question that arises in the wider culture. In this case, it was the theological issues that arose from historical-critical biblical scholarship that split the church apart.
Perhaps the best summary of the Modernist Controversy comes in the so-called “Auburn Affirmation,” published in January, 1924, and signed by 150 pastors and elders in the PCUSA. The affirmation was republished four months later on May 5, 1924, now with nearly 1300 signatures.19 The Auburn affirmation sought to protect liberty (1) concerning the interpretation of the Confession of Faith, and (2) concerning the interpretation of the Scriptures. The letter critiques a decision of the General Assembly of 1923, which had identified certain doctrines as “contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian church.”
Here is the significant paragraph:
Furthermore, this opinion of the General Assembly attempts to commit our church to certain theories concerning the inspiration of the Bible, and the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, and the Continuing Life and Supernatural Power of our Lord Jesus Christ. We hold most earnestly to these great facts and doctrines; we all believe from our hearts that the writers of the Bible were inspired of God; that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh; that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, and through Him we have our redemption; that having died for our sins He rose from the dead and is our everliving Saviour; that in His earthly ministry He wrought many mighty works, and by His vicarious death and unfailing presence He is able to save to the uttermost. Some of us regard the particular theories contained in the deliverance of the General Assembly of 1923 as satisfactory explanations of these facts and doctrines. But we are united in believing that these are not the only theories allowed by the Scriptures and our standards as explanations of these facts and doctrines of our religion, and that all who hold to these facts and doctrines, whatever theories they may employ to explain them, are worthy of all confidence and fellowship.20
The stated goal of this affirmation was not to repudiate the inerrancy of Scripture, nor the virgin birth of Jesus, nor whether he paid for sins by substitutionary atonement, nor that he was bodily resurrected from the dead, nor that he is still alive, reigning at the right hand of the Father, until his bodily return. The point was not to repudiate these doctrines altogether, but simply to allow for other interpretations alongside these “theories” about these biblical doctrines. The effect, however, was the same: the toleration of false teaching is a cancer in the church.
The fallout from this doctrinal declension was great, and it included the separation of a great number of Presbyterians from the PCUSA into a new denomination in 1936, originally called the Presbyterian Church of America, but later renamed to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) in 1939, through the leadership of J. Gresham Machen.21 Similarly, many of the faculty from Princeton Theological Seminary (including Machen) had already left to form Westminster Theological Seminary in 1929.22
In the Modernist Controversy, we see how the spirit of the age can infiltrate the church, twisting her from the faithful proclamation of the gospel. This danger is present in every era, including our own.
Summary
This is only a brief history of Presbyterianism, and it leaves out many of the significant issues that lead to the formation of the Presbyterian Church in America (the PCA) in 1973. We will deal with those questions later; however, as we will see, many of these same issues resurface in the Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) which had contributed to the separation of the OPC from the Northern Presbyterian Church (PCUSA). Furthermore, we find the seeds of many of those issues in the Old School/New School and the Old Side/New Side Controversies.
What should we make of these trends over time? What should we learn from, so that we can avoid it? What should we study, as we continue to wrestle with the right balance of these issues today? How should we be diligent to defend and cultivate a healthy PCA today?
Jacob Gerber is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is Pastor at Harvest Community Church (PCA) in Omaha, NE. This article is used with permission.

1  Samuel Miller, An Essay on the Warrant, Nature and Duties of the Office of Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church (New York: Jonathan Leavitt, 1831), 36.
2 Miller, Office of Ruling Elder in the Presbyterian Church, 39.
3 The Ministers of Sion College, ed. by David W. Hall, Jus Divinum Regiminis Ecclesiastici or The Divine Right of Church-Government (Dallas, TX: Naphtali Press, 1995; Originally Published in 1646), 193 (§2–12).
4 This language of invented vs. inherited comes from my friend Erik Bauer during the class discussion when I presented this material.
5 Clement of Rome, “1 Clement,” in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. by Michael W. Holmes, trans. by Michael W. Holmes, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 121.
6 Ignatius of Antioch, “The Letter of Ignatius to the Trallians,” in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, 215–16.
7 D. G. Hart and John R. Muether, Seeking a Better Country: 300 Years of American Presbyterianism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007), 8.
8 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 19.
9 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 24–32.
10 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 87.
11  Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 54.
12Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 55–56.
13 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 56–57.
14 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 111.
15 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 112.
16 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 113.
17 From Finney’s Lectures on Revivals of Religion (1846), as quoted in Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 113.
18 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 115–16.
19 “Text of the Auburn Affirmation,” on the website of the PCA Historical Center. Accessed January 12, 2022. < >
20 “Text of the Auburn Affirmation,” p. 4.
21 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 200.
22 Hart and Muether, Seeking a Better Country, 196.

Speck v. Missouri Presbytery may not be the last case of its kind that will come through our system. Everyone recognizes that we are facing difficult disagreements on important issues. With this in mind, every presbyter in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) should study the SJC decision and the Dissenting Opinion of the minority as we consider general principles for how we handle similar cases in the future.

In the previous post, TE Zack Groff laid out a plan for understanding the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) decision on Judicial Case 2020-12 (Speck v. Missouri Presbytery). As part of the post, TE Groff recommended that readers carefully consider the Dissenting Opinion drafted by RE Steve Dowling and signed by seven members of the SJC (including RE Dowling).
In response to TE Groff’s recommendation, at least one fellow TE posed a question (on social media) about why we allow for dissenting opinions, and the purpose they might serve since they do not affect the decision itself.
This is an important question both for the specific case at-hand and for our polity more generally. In this post, I will offer seven reasons why the polity of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) values dissenting opinions. The first four are general in nature, and the next three are in regard to this particular case.

Dissenting opinions from the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) are important for the same reasons they are important for the United States Supreme Court.

At a very general level, dissenting opinions give the minority an opportunity to express concerns or unanswered questions about the decision of the Court (or Commission) that may help to shape or inform future decisions. Though the SJC decision is final for this case, the Dissenting Opinion of the minority may be pertinent for future cases.

A final decision is not necessarily the same thing as a correct decision.

As the drafters of the Westminster Standards wisely acknowledged, “All synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred” (WCF 31.3). A dissenting opinion gives presbyters an opportunity to point out where the Court (or Commission) may have erred. Taking this principle seriously means that the rest of us should take the time to hear what such dissenting opinions have to say.

Dissenting opinions – like our polity as a whole – balance the opportunity to express disagreement with the careful maintenance of church unity.

One man in my presbytery once rightly observed that our polity balances the ability to express disagreement while still maintaining unity. A dissenting opinion does precisely this by recognizing the finality of a particular decision while also preserving the ability to express a different view. The provision of a formal mechanism for expressing carefully reasoned and respectful (i.e., temperate) disagreement actually promotes unity.

Our polity prioritizes listening to one another.

James admonishes us, “let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger” (Jas. 1:19). Regardless of whether or not you agree with the SJC decision, carefully listening to both majority and minority opinions is important to our polity.
For further development of this principle of listening to one another, consider what I wrote about the biblical precept and example for listening in the courts of the church in my recent post, The Biblical Foundations of Parliamentary Procedure.
Read More

At its core, parliamentary procedure is a set of rules designed to guide us in our deliberations as a church. This is important since deliberation is central to the nature, purpose, and function of church courts. Fundamental to biblical polity, then, is that we enter the courts of the church with a determination to make our decisions there, in conversation with all the other presbyters of the church gathered there. As we listen to one another, God commands us to speak to one another with God’s own Word, “submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5:19–21).

“Behold, how good and pleasant it is when brothers dwell in unity!” (Ps. 133:1).
Life in Christ’s church can be hard, especially when we must deal with complicated, difficult, and controversial questions. Nevertheless, we purposefully close every General Assembly by singing Psalm 133 together as a prayer that God would continue to weave this unity into the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
Ours is not the first generation in which  the church has struggled for unity. What, though, are we supposed to do when “no small dissension and debate” (Acts 15:2) arises within the church?  What does the Bible teach us about resolving such dissensions and debate?
I want to argue a controversial idea: if we were to tease out all the principles that the Bible teaches for resolving our disagreements in the church, we would end up with a system that looks very much like what we call parliamentary procedure. Rather than seeing parliamentary procedure as arbitrary or arcane, and far from seeing parliamentary procedure as a hindrance to the work of the church, I want to argue that parliamentary procedure reflects the Bible’s own teaching for how to make decisions as a church.
The Bible teaches, then, that our church government should derive from the same principles of biblical wisdom that we use to structure our worship: “Let all things be done for building up….But all things should be done decently and in order.” (1 Cor. 14:26, 40; see WCF 1.6). In this article, I  explore three major ways in which the main principles of parliamentary procedure follow the general rules of the Word, “which are always to be observed” (WCF 1.6).
1. Parliamentary Procedure Gathers an Assembly to Deliberate
Let’s start with a foundational principle: in order to make decisions, we must gather together in the same place, at the same time. Just as we recognize the importance of gathering together for worship, as suggested by the routine use of the words for “come together” (sunerchomai; sunagō) in passages about corporate worship (e.g., Acts 11:26; 13:44; 14:27; 16:13; 20:7–8; 1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 20, 33, 34; 14:23, 26), so too should we acknowledge the importance of gathering together for deliberation and decision-making.
When the Jerusalem Council had to consider the ongoing relevance of circumcision in the Church, we read that “[T]he apostles and the elders were gathered together (sunagō) to consider this matter” (Acts 15:6). We don’t make decisions from afar or by correspondence, but by gathering together at one place, and at one time, to talk together about the questions before us.
To some degree, this principle can be extended into virtual meetings; however, Robert’s Rules of Order requires “at a minimum, conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participating members equivalent to those of meetings held in one room or area” (RONR [12th ed.] 9:31). Even if we meet on a Zoom call, we can make decisions if and only if we can, at the very least, hear one another.
2. Parliamentary Procedure Prioritizes our Listening
The reason that the Bible requires us to be together at the same place, at the same time, is to prioritize listening. While we often overlook it, the centrality of silence and listening in both Acts 15 and 1 Corinthians 14 is astonishing:

And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. (Acts 15:12)
After they finished speaking [lit., “fell silent”], James replied, “Brothers, listen to me.” (Acts 15:13)
But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silent in church and speak to himself and to God. (1 Cor. 14:28)
If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. (1 Cor. 14:30)
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. (1 Cor. 14:33b–34a)

Read More