knowledge, His sovereignty, these two sections form an excellent guide for Bible study. Though their wording was framed in the seventeenth century they will never become a dead letter for believers in the one true and living God.
The trinitarian third section is very short. In fact, those who wish to rewrite the creeds would do better to consider expanding here rather than contracting anywhere. The doctrine of the Trinity centers in the deity of Christ. The personality of the Spirit and the relations among the Persons are included, but surely it is not incorrect to say that the deity of Christ forms the center.
Can it be said now that present controversies in Presbyterian churches do not call the deity of Christ into question. Presbyterian ministers have denied the inerrancy of Scripture; some of them refuse to affirm the Virgin Birth; some deny that Christ "arose from the dead with the same body in which He suffered" (Conf. VIII iv); but do not all Presbyterian ministers believe in the deity of Christ?
The paragraph above asks two questions, which may appear to be the same, but which are not. The second question is, Do all Presbyterian ministers accept the deity of Christ? In answer it may be said that there is little evidence to prove even a few cases of unbelief at this important point. In view of the doctrinal laxity of our age it would not be surprising if some Presbyterian ministers repudiated Christ. Some might even be atheists or communists. Of course they would have been hypocrites and perjurers at their ordination, but this is quite possible, for the Presbyterian ministry would be a very valuable vantage point for a communist. But there is little evidence of any widespread rejection of Chirst's deity.
However, it would be wrong to infer, in answer to the first question, that the present doctrinal laxity, the controversies over union, the ecumenical obsession, and all the ferment of our age, leave the deity of Christ untouched and do not call it into question.
An attack against a citadel is not always frontal. Sometimes the outer defenses are first put out of commission, one by one; sometimes the foundations are undermined; sometimes the supplies are cut off. This is not to suggest that any of those who differ with us on matters of union intend to weaken their testimony to the deity of Christ. It does not even imply that all those who deny the Virgin Birth are conscious enemies of trinitarianism. The ecclesiastical situation is similar to the political, where many Americans have advocated this or that part of communistic propaganda without knowing its source and aims.
But put the question this way: if the Virgin Birth is not an historical event, and if the body of Christ did not come out of the tomb, and if the Scriptures are often in error, and if, in comparison with the organization of a super-church, all of these doctrinal matters are insignificant, what hope is there of long maintaining the deity of Christ? Let those answer who have been trying to satisfy themselves with a minimum of Christian doctrine. The rest of us will nourish our souls with the help of the complete Confession, all thirty-three chapters of it.
First Presbyterian Church spring and college streets murfreesboro, tennessee ralph m. llewellyn minister
October 5, 1954
The Southern Presbyterian Journal, Weaverville, North Carolina To the Editors, As the time draws near for a vote on the matter of union, it seems to me that one thing needed on both sides of the question is a spirit of fairness toward the other side. Many of those opposed to union have not been fair in assuming that all who favor it represent the liberal viewpoint in theology, or that they are indifferent to the essentials of the Christian faith. They have not been fair in their representations of the other two churches involved. Nor have they been fair in rushing the vote on the question contrary to the recommendations of the General Assembly. On the other hand, many of those who favor union have not been fair in assuming that all who oppose union represent a bigoted, non-cooperative, Pharisaical viewpoint. They have often indiscriminately classified all who oppose union as belonging to a continuing church movement. They have on occasion left the impression that one who opposes union is something less than Christian. Let's be fair in our discussions on both sides of the question. Let's be zealous for facts. Let's recognize that a man may sincerely feel that union will promote the Kingdom of God, that another man may just as sincerely feel that organic union is not essential to the spiritual unity that should prevail among all Christians, and that both men may be earnest Christians sharing a common devotion to the cause of God's Kingdom. Ralph M. Llewellyn From A Pennsylvania Presbyterian Pastor: I send you this to assure you of my continued appreciation of your Journal. Its invariable loyalty to the Lord and His Word, and its ably edited position on current problems in Church and Nation have been not only courageous but wise and marked with Christian restraint. We have read it carefully every week, and always with edification.
