In today’s religiously diverse and relativistic culture, labeling a group a cult may seem extreme to many people, not to mention rude. Even people who believe in absolute Truth and further believe that Jesus is the only way to eternal life can get confused about just what constitutes real Christianity. Just why are Baptists properly considered Christians, but Mormons are not? Or why is the Jehovah’s Witness religion classified as an anti-Christian cult while Presbyterians or Wesleyans or Pentecostals are simply seen as denominations within the Christian faith? With the explosion of different sects that claim to honor and follow Jesus, how does one differentiate between true Biblical Christianity and an aberrant religious movement? Just what are “the marks of a cult?

I have argued elsewhere for the relevancy of “para-church” organisations (here). It is important to understand these organisations in correct context. As a general rule for living faithfully as Christians we should have the freedom to participate/do something unless the Scripture clearly prohibits the activity. This is relevant for the “para-church” organisation. I assert that “para-church” organisations can be obedient or disobedient to the Word of God. The test of this obedience can be taken as at least two fold; does the “para-church” organisation recognise the threefold ministerial responsibilities and authority of the Church, and does the organisation adhere to orthodox Christianity (i.e. accepting the Apostles and Nicene creeds as basic Christianity)?

The authority, function and responsibilities of the Church have diminished in recent years. Snyder (1977, p. 138 & 143) argues that “the Church is biblically: the community of God’s people, not an institutional or organizational structure,” and it contains no “formal organizational structures.” He (Snyder, 1977, p. 144) goes on to remark that it “is fruitless to try to discover a formal organization underlying the life of the early church.” It is important to note that even though Snyder argues in this manner he does identify a few “structures” from the biblical evidence (Snyder, 1977, p. 146). As far as the institutional Church is concerned Snyder (1977, p. 158) asserts that “the Church will inevitably assume some institutional form, even though the Church is not the institution.” This highlights Snyder’s low-Church theological bias. A bent towards understanding the Bible as a book containing two independent/distinct volumes (i.e. New and Old Testaments) seems to underscore Snyder’s arguments against the institution of the Church. Our doctrine of the Church, its role, authority and responsibilities must be established from the entire counsel of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17 ). As we seek to unwrap the authority and responsibilities of local churches it is important to understand Church through whole Bible eyes.

What should the focus of our churches be? Are we to emphasise head (doctrine, things you believe and the truth you believe), hands (works of mercy) or hearts (love)? We ought to stand back and comprehend the picture Scripture paints. "The shape of the Gospel is triune because God is triune." In other words God is the Gospel and in Christ we ought not to ignore the head, hands or hearts. They are all important. Our approach must be distinctly Trinitarian. The Trinity must shape our understanding of man, the world and God. All three categories (head, hands, heart) are necessary, important and are found together in Christ. Christianity is distinctly Trinitarian and the shape of the Gospel is triune; we cannot reduce it to any of the categories but must accept it as shaped by the triune God of the Bible. To do anything less is reductionistic and missing the point. If our picture of the Gospel is not seen through a Trinitarian lens we are merely looking at the back of a tapestry and marvel at the random coloured tangle BUT in doing so we miss the grandiose work art work on the right side up!

I am continuing with some study in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). In the first article I presented a brief history giving you the back drop to the calling of the Westminster Assembly by the Long Parliament in the English summer of 1643. In article two I established the Scriptural evidence for the use of creeds and I laid before you the doctrine of the insufficiency of natural revelation and the sufficiency of special revelation. This time I will present to you the inspiration of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible, the source and nature of the Scriptures authority, and then discuss how we should view the Apocrypha. I hope you, like me, are comprehending the depth and breadth of this faithful confession of Orthodox Reformed Christianity. To do justice to each of the sections within the Confession we could spend weeks unpacking the rich heritage that has been deposited here for the glory of Christ’s Kingdom.

This is my second consideration of the Westminster Confession of Faith. My first article can be found at this LINK . This time I will consider chapter 1, section 1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). Before I look at that chapter I want to briefly discuss two issues; firstly, the necessity of creeds and confessions, and secondly the importance of the Confession’s opening chapter in dealing with the Scriptures.

George Santayana aptly stated; “[t]hose who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it.”[1]As 21st century Christians many of us know nothing of the historical roots of the Church. We pride ourselves in contemporary living. Credence seems to be given to fresh ideas. It is out with the old and in with the new. Modern Christendom is mimicking what it sees in the world roundabout it. Innovation is preferred to in depth study of God’s Word. Popular culture is shaping how we worship instead of an understanding of how our forefathers in the faith lived out their faith in obedience. How often we forget the importance of history; friends we must return to know, love and understand that the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ has determined the course of history. In deed, it has shaped the freedoms afforded our western societies. From the very beginning of creation to the final day in history all has been preordained by the sovereign will of the Triune God of the Bible. Everything is working and has in history to the glory of God, whether we understand why or how, or not. In discounting the history of the Church modern Christians rob their faith of much richness and fullness and diminish it to mere doctrinal statements. Remember, the Bible is not merely a text book of theological assertions. It is the story of the history of man, his fall and salvation unto working upon the earth -tending it and taking dominion over it - for the glory of God. The Bible’s theology and doctrine are of utmost importance but we must also acknowledge the impetus of the historical stories which run through the pages of Scripture. Friends, we must become a people who keep telling the “old, old story.” Our theology needs to burst from our fingertips. Henry Van Til aptly surmised the efforts of the Reformers; “[t]hrough the Reformation the mechanical relation of nature and grace was superceded by an ethical one, so that the restoration of the law of God in every sphere of life became the concern of the believer.”[2]Through this introduction to the Westminster Confession I will seek to tell you the story surrounding the formation of the Westminster Assembly and the development of its confession. We must learn to love the stories of antiquity which make up the rich heritage of the Church of Jesus Christ; that Church which has continuously grown since the Garden of Eden and the promise of Genesis 3:15 .