Roger Nicole writes:

You may be surprised to find that the word “conversion” does not appear in the Westminster Confession or Catechisms. But the verb “convert” does appear in the chapter on free will (9.4) in the phrase; “When God converts a sinner …” The words “convert” and “conversion” are equally rare in the Bible. In the King James Version “conversion” is found only in Acts 15:3. The verb “convert” appears 14 times, and the noun “convert” is used three times. In other versions the figures are lower yet.

Even though this word is rare in the Scriptures, the concept of conversion is present in a variety of Hebrew and Greek words. This is apparent in the beginning of the article “Conversion” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE). Conversion is an act of God that causes a repenting sinner, brought to life in regeneration, to turn away from sin and toward God and living faith in Jesus Christ.

Saving faith and repentance are really two names for one radical turn by which one’s original course is reversed away from sin and toward God.

The Confession treats each of these two components in separate chapters; saving faith in chapter 14, repentance in chapter 15. They are introduced together in both the Shorter and Larger Catechisms. The Shorter Catechism has one question each for faith and repentance (questions 86 and 87), and the Larger Catechism devotes two questions to justifying faith (72 and 73) and one to repentance (76).

The Catechisms and Confession order these subjects in widely different ways. The Confession deals with faith and repentance after effectual calling, justification, adoption and sanctification, and before good works, perseverance and assurance. Glorification appears in the last two chapters. In this way the order of the golden chain of salvation (Rom. 8:29­–30) is followed, with the addition of two links, adoption and sanctification, that certainly belong to the phases of the plan of salvation. Glorification comes at the end, a natural place, since it is part of the consummation. It is noteworthy that G. I. Williamson, in The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes has actually reordered the Confession’s chapters to keep faith and repentance near effectual calling, since they are the immediate and necessary fruits of regeneration.

Here is the order in the Larger Catechism: justification, justifying faith, adoption and sanctification; then comes repentance unto life, followed by questions on the difference between justification and sanctification, the reason for the imperfection of sanctification in the believers, perseverance, assurance, and nine questions on glorification and eternal destiny. The duty of repentance and faith is treated in question 153, after the lengthy exposition of the law of God.

In the Shorter Catechism the order is different still. The questions concerning effectual calling, justification, adoption, and sanctification are followed by three questions dealing with the benefits of salvation in this life, at death, and at the resurrection. Then come 46 questions related to the law of God (questions 39­–84) followed by three questions dealing with faith and repentance (85–87). After that a study of the means of grace – the Word, the sacraments, and prayer, concludes the catechism.

These different orders show that there are different ways of explaining the order of the application of redemption. In his Institutes, Calvin dealt with faith and repentance immediately after saying that it is the Holy Spirit who applies to individuals the benefits of the mediating work of Christ. Francis Turretin has no separate place for repentance or conversion, but he deals with faith before his treatment of justification. More recent theologians treat conversion and repentance immediately after regeneration. Turretin finishes up with a chapter on faith, then justification, sanctification, and perseverance.

Let’s take a look at the contents of the chapters on saving faith and repentance in the Westminster Confession.

I. Saving Faith
The Origin of Faith 14.1
It is clear that faith does not arise by the initiative of sinful human beings. This glorious flower does not grow on the dunghill of human depravity and rebellion. The Confession states this truth in five ways: (a) Faith is called a grace; (b) the elect are the ones who exercise saving faith; (c) they are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls; (d) it is the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart; and (e) three passages of Scripture are listed: 1 Corinthians 12:5, Ephesians 2:8, Hebrews 12:2.

It’s also clear that this blessing that originates in God’s plan is connected with the ministry of the Word and the administration of the means of grace. God is the formal cause and these are often instrumental causes.

In light of this, it is important to recognise that the new Christian is not passive in the act of faith but actively exercises the new powers established by accepting the truth. Faith involves the whole person – body and soul; mind, heart, and will. It is not God who believes through us, but in faith we respond; the first act of a freed slave. (Jn. 8:32­–36)

That a believer is personally active in faith is clear from the fact that the verb “believe” occurs in the imperative (e.g. Mk. 5:36; Jn. 10:38; 14:2; Acts 16:31). God commands us to do something that requires our participation, at least to some extent. God never says “Be born” or “Be born again,” for these acts are clearly outside our reach. But “repent,” “believe,” and “obey” include our activity even though we are helpless to do this if God does not enable us by his spirit.

The object of faith 14.2a
“By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatsoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of God himself speaking therein,” We can summarise this in three propositions: The whole Bible is true, the whole Bible is the Word of God, and the Christian is bound to accept the whole Bible as such. To fail to do that is a signal of failure of faith.

Since the Bible contains different types of messages, the Confession articulates the right attitude toward three important forms of revelation: commands we must obey, threats that make us fear and tremble, and joyful promises.

Christ as the object of faith 14.2b
Saving faith is indispensably connected with the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. Three words show how faith and redemption are linked: (a) accepting, that is, recognising that what the Scripture says about the Savior is true; (b) receiving, that is, having the saving blessing that Christ secured; (c) resting upon Christ alone, that is, rejecting any hope or expectation of salvation or any other ground than the work of Christ.

Note that our faith is not the basis of justification, otherwise faith would function as a work. The ground of justification is Christ’s work and that alone. Faith functions as an electric switch that adds nothing to the current but directs it where it is needed.

The benefits embraced by faith 14.2c
The Confession lists three benefits: (a) Justification, that is, the forgiveness of all our sins and the investiture of the merits of Jesus Christ; (b) sanctification, that is, the progressive elimination of all sinful drives and tendencies of our inner being, and renewal of our nature into conformity to the demands of a holy God; and (c) eternal life, that is, the blessing of fellowship with God our Creator in the present life (Jn. 5:24) and for all ages to come (Jn. 14:3; Rom. 8: 38–­39; 1 Jn. 3:2). These are all benefits included in the covenant of grace.

The degrees of faith 14.3
Like so many human activities, faith shows some variation – when one compares one Christian to another, and also in the same person at different moments of life. In this sense faith may be assailed and weakened or again refreshed and strengthened.

One characteristic of a strong faith is the assurance of salvation through Christ, “the author and perfecter of our faith.” (Heb. 12:2) Assurance is undermined by disobedience; it is strengthened by the use of the means of grace that reinforce our sense of fellowship with Christ, and consequently of our union with Him.

The joy of salvation is a blessing that God bestows on His obedient children. When wilful and conscious sin intervenes the sense of fellowship is damaged, even as a cloud may for a time hide the face of the sun. (Ps. 51:12)

II. Repentance unto life
The relevance of repentance 15.1
The Westminster Confession calls repentance an “evangelical grace”, meaning that it is only through the grace of God that any sinner is awakened to repentance. This is stated in Acts 11:18. “God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” Every minister must preach the necessity of repentance as well as of faith. (Acts 20:21). As with faith, repentance, too, is not purely passive but must act in response to God’s command.

The origin of repentance 15.1b
There are three awarenesses that are at the root of true repentance: (a) a sense and sight of the dangers incurred because of sin; (b) a perception of the heinousness of sin as contrary to God’s nature and law; and (c) a realisation that God is merciful to those who are truly penitent.

The nature of repentance 15.2b
Repentance is a sincere revulsion against the filthiness and odiousness of sin, and a turn toward God and his merciful pardon. It is a deep desire and commitment to abandon the paths of sin and to live unto God in a new obedience to His commandments. This definition appears in almost identical terms in the two catechisms.

The necessity of repentance 15.3
Repentance is not necessary as the ground for forgiveness, since the work of Jesus Christ is sufficient for pardon and acceptance, but it is so indispensable that no one may entertain the hope of salvation without it.

The variety in gravity of sin 15.4
All sins are not equally grievous. There is none so small that it does not deserve damnation and none so horrendous that it exceeds God’s power to forgive those who repent. The sin against the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:32; Heb. 6:4­6; 1 Jn. 5:16) is not one that exceeds God’s power to forgive, but one that manifests such hardening of the heart in response to full enlightenment that no repentance may be expected from those who have hardened themselves to such a degree.

Repentance and Confession 15.5, 15.6
We should not be satisfied to make a general confession to God. However, it is important to review in prayer any acts of disobedience that we have committed. This will help us to remain penitent and to flee the paths of sin. In addition to our private confession to God we should be willing and prepared to acknowledge our faults to those we have offended and to make a public confession when our sins have been of public nature. Christians must forgive those who repent and confess their sins should be forgiven by Christians even as they are forgiven by God.

Chapters fourteen and fifteen of the Confession glorify God, who is the author of every good and perfect gift. (Jas. 1:17) These are intensely practical chapters that should strongly influence our daily walk. Our profession of faith and conduct will glorify God if we live by the principles contained in them. (Mt. 5:16)

Sinclair Ferguson writes:

When the gospel is proclaimed, it seems at first sight that two different, even alternative, responses are called for. Sometimes the summons is, “Repent!” Thus, “John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, ‘Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’” (Matt. 3:1–2). Again, Peter urged the hearers whose consciences had been ripped open on the day of Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38). Later, Paul urged the Athenians to “repent” in response to the message of the risen Christ (Acts 17:30).

Yet, on other occasions, the appropriate response to the gospel is, “Believe!” When the Philippian jailer asked Paul what he must do to be saved, the Apostle told him, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).

But there is no mystery or contradiction here. Further on in Acts 17, we discover that precisely where the response of repentance was required, those who were converted are described as believing (Acts 17:30, 34).

Any confusion is surely resolved by the fact that when Jesus preached “the gospel of God” in Galilee, He urged His hearers, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14–15). Here repentance and faith belong together. They denote two aspects in conversion that are equally essential to it. Thus, either term implies the presence of the other because each reality (repentance or faith) is the sine qua non of the other.

In grammatical terms, then, the words repent and believe both function as a synecdoche—the figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole. Thus, repentance implies faith and faith implies repentance. One cannot exist without the other.

But which comes first, logically? Is it repentance? Is it faith? Or does neither have an absolute priority? There has been prolonged debates in Reformed thought about this. Each of three possible answers has had advocates:

First, W. G. T. Shedd insisted that faith must precede repentance in the order of nature: “Though faith and repentance are inseparable and simultaneous, yet in the order of nature, faith precedes repentance” (Dogmatic Theology, 2.536). Shedd argued this on the grounds that the motivating power for repentance lies in faith’s grasp of the mercy of God. If repentance were to precede faith, both repentance and faith would be legal in character, and they would become prerequisites for grace.

Second, Louis Berkhof appears to have taken the reverse position: “There is no doubt that, logically, repentance and the knowledge of sin precede the faith that yields to Christ in trusting love” (Systematic Theology, p. 492).

Third, John Murray insisted that this issue raises

an unnecessary question and the insistence that one is prior to the other is futile. There is no priority. The faith that is unto salvation is a penitent faith and the repentance that is unto life is a believing repentance … saving faith is permeated with repentance and repentance is permeated with saving faith. (Redemption—Accomplished and Applied, p. 113).

This is, surely, the more biblical perspective. We cannot separate turning from sin in repentance and coming to Christ in faith. They describe the same person in the same action, but from different perspectives. In one instance (repentance), the person is viewed in relation to sin; in the other (faith), the person is viewed in relation to the Lord Jesus. But the individual who trusts in Christ simultaneously turns away from sin. In believing he repents and in repenting believes. Perhaps R. L. Dabney expressed it best when he insisted that repentance and faith are “twin” graces (perhaps we might say “conjoined twins”). But having said this, we have by no means said everything there is to say. Entwined within any theology of conversion lies a psychology of conversion. In any particular individual, at the level of consciousness, a sense of either repentance or trust may predominate. What is unified theologically may be diverse psychologically. Thus, an individual deeply convicted of the guilt and bondage of sin may experience turning from it (repentance) as the dominant note in his or her conversion. Others (whose experience of conviction deepens after their conversion) may have a dominant sense of the wonder of Christ’s love, with less agony of soul at the psychological level. Here the individual is more conscious of trusting in Christ than of repentance from sin. But in true conversion, neither can exist without the other.

The psychological accompaniments of conversion thus vary, sometimes depending on the dominant gospel emphasis that is set before the sinner (the sinfulness of sin or the greatness of grace). This is quite consistent with the shrewd comment of the Westminster Divines to the effect that faith (that is, the trusting response of the individual to the word of the gospel) “acteth differently upon that which each particular passage thereof [of Scripture] containeth” (WCF 16.2).

In no case, however, can real conversion take place apart from the presence of both repentance and faith, and therefore both joy and sorrow. A “conversion” that lacks all sorrow for sin, that receives the word with only joy, will be temporary.

Jesus’ parable of the sower is instructive here. In one type of soil, the seed sprouts quickly but dies suddenly. This represents “converts” who receive the word with joy—but with no sense of fallow ground being broken up by conviction of sin or any pain in turning from it (Mark 4:5–6, 16–17). On the other hand, a conversion that is only sorrow for sin without any joy in pardon will prove to have been only “worldly grief” that “produces death” (2 Cor. 7:10). In the end, it will come to nothing.

This, however, raises a final question: Does the necessity of repentance in conversion constitute a kind of work that detracts from the empty-handedness of faith? Does it compromise grace?

In a word, no. Sinners must always come empty-handed. But this is precisely the point. By nature, my hands are full (of sin, self, and my own “good deeds”). However, hands that are full cannot hold on to Christ in faith. Instead, as they take hold of Him, they are emptied. That which has prevented us from trusting Him falls inevitably to the ground. The old way of life cannot be retained in hands that are taking hold of the Savior.

Yes, repentance and faith are two essential elements in conversion. They constitute twin graces that can never be separated. As John Calvin well reminds us, this is true not only of the beginning but of the whole of our Christian lives. We are believing penitents and penitent believers all the way to glory.

© Tabletalk magazine, Ligonier ministries. Reprinted with permission from http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/faith-and-repentance/

Martyn Lloyd-Jones pointed out that there are at least 6 ways that we, like the unbelieving Jews of Paul’s day, can subtly hold onto a supposed self-righteousness. Reflecting on the teaching of Romans 2:1–11, Lloyd-Jones wrote:

(1) “Sin introduces, or can introduce, a prejudice into our listening to the Gospel, or into our reading of the Gospel. … We come to the Scriptures, pick out what we like and do not notice what we do not like. This is exactly what these Jews had done…

Some of us, sometimes, tend to read the Scriptures, not so much to be enlightened and to be taught, as to confirm our own theories, our own ideas, and our own prejudices. … We are all guilty of it.

(2) So many tend to make us put ourselves into special categories and compartments. That is the outcome of the first, is it not? ‘I am a Jew. He is a Gentile.’ We are all given those labels. … We tend to put ourselves into categories and compartments and then, of course, we go on doing what I have already been saying – we find statements in Scripture to confirm us and to buttress our position.

(3) ‘Quite right,’ we say, ‘These abominable sins!’ We see them as we walk along the streets … We read about them in the newspaper, and we are impatient with those people. We feel they all ought to be blasted out of existence. We see it so clearly as it applies to others, but never in the case of ourselves. We tend to be blind to our own sins.

(4) We are all experts at running away from [the gospel] …we run away from the doctrine of justification through faith alone when we rely upon anything or anyone except the Lord Jesus Christ and his perfect work. I do not care what it is! If you rely on your country, if you say, “I must be a Christian, I was born in…—a Christian country,’ if you are relying on that kind of thing, you are denying justification by faith, as the Jews did. If you are relying on the fact that your parents were Christians or saints; if you have any reliance upon your birth and ancestry; of if in any way you are relying on any form of moralism, on your good life, and your respectability, and your good works; if any of these things is true of you, you are denying justification by faith.

(5) [When we] separate doctrine from life. The Jew, you see, did not take daily living into consideration at all, either in the case of the Gentile or in his own case … The Jew seemed to say, ‘It does not matter what I do. I am a Jew, and because I am a Jew I am alright. As for the Gentile, of course…’ That is separation of doctrine and life. It is a terrible danger and a most subtle one. It does not matter whether you have little doctrine or much doctrine, it is equally dangerous.

(6) Lloyd-Jones concluded his argument by saying that there is “a persistence with which we tend to defend ourselves. We start with one position,” he wrote, “then the argument knocks it down, and we jump to another. The Jews started with the position that they were Jews then they relied on the goodness and mercy of God, then on the law, then on ceremonial. We will clutch at any straw.”

Like baptism, the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament. A sacrament is not primarily something that we do to express our testimony. Regrettably, that’s what many believers think. But the Bible teaches that a sacrament is primarily a visible, tangible affirmation to us from God himself. God appends the sacrament to his Word in order to reinforce his gospel message. It’s a sign that symbolises the gospel, that makes the Word “visible.” It’s a seal that assures believers that God himself stands behind his promises. It’s a means of grace through which God actually delivers Jesus Christ and his benefits to his elect by his Holy Spirit and through faith. What does God call to our attention by the Lord’s Supper?

Christ’s Death Is Pivotal

First, by the Lord’s Supper, God signifies that Christ’s death is pivotal to salvation. In the Upper Room, Jesus instituted a new ordinance to be a recurring element in public worship. He told his followers to do this again and again “in remembrance of me.”

Jesus said, “This is my body, which is given for you.” He wasn’t referring to his body right there alive with them. Rather, the bread pictured his body as it would soon be given for them in death. He said, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” The wine didn’t stand for the blood coursing through his veins as he spoke. It stood for his blood as it would soon be poured out for them in his death. Each element pointed to his sacrificial death. First and foremost, the Lord’s Supper depicts Christ crucified.

Apart from Christ’s atoning death, there is no salvation whatsoever. If Christ’s substitutionary atonement isn’t at the heart of your faith, then yours is different from the one that Jesus proclaimed. Do you see yourself as a guilty sinner? Do you know that you are utterly devoid of hope, except for the redeeming work of Jesus Christ?

Christ’s Death Was Purposeful

Second, by the sealing ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, Jesus underscores why he died. Regarding the “cup,” Jesus spoke not just of his “blood,” but also of “the new covenant.” He said that his “blood of the covenant” would be “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28). What does that mean?

Immediately after the Fall, God established his covenant of grace with Adam. When God brought Abraham into his covenant, he promised to bless his offspring and to make them a blessing to all the families of the earth. At Mount Sinai, God further unfolded his covenant with Abraham’s offspring. He bound himself to be their God, and bound them to be his people. They ratified his covenant by the blood of sacrifice: “And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant that the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words’” (Ex. 24:8).

Unhappily, through the centuries, God’s people were repeatedly unfaithful to the covenant. Still, in sheer grace, God persisted in keeping his covenant. Bit by bit, step by step, he led his people to look beyond the present, to look for a future fulfilment. Then he made an amazing promise through Jeremiah: “‘The days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ‘when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,’ declares the Lord. ‘This is the covenant that I will make with the people of Israel after that time,’ declares the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbour, or say to one another, “Know the Lord,” because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the Lord. ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.’” (Jer. 31:31-34).

In the Upper Room, Jesus said, in effect, “God is finally bringing about the promised new covenant. He is finally providing the promised forgiveness of sins. And I am God’s appointed sacrifice that will seal this covenant and secure this forgiveness.” Our Lord Jesus died to rescue sinners like you and me. Our Savior submitted to the accursed cross in order to bring us into this new covenant friendship with God. Do you see Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life, by whom alone you can come to the Father?

The Benefits of Christ’s Death Must Be Personally Received

Third, by the Lord’s Supper, God stresses how Christ delivers his death to sinners. Jesus took the bread, blessed it, broke it, explained its meaning, and gave it to his disciples. Then they took and ate. Jesus blessed the cup, explained its meaning, and gave it to them. Again, they took and drank. It’s not enough to see the bread broken and the wine poured. You have to take and eat; you have to take and drink. Do you get the point? Salvation isn’t yours just because you know about Christ’s death and resurrection. You must also personally receive the benefits of his death and resurrection. And the way you do that is through coming to Jesus Christ in faith.

The Lord’s Supper is the outward sign of the inner reality that Jesus proclaimed after he fed the five thousand—“Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. I am the bread of life…. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh…. Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink” (John 6:47-55).

Both in his preaching and in the Lord’s Supper, Jesus insists that he graciously gave himself for sinners and that now you must personally receive the benefits of his saving work. You need to know the facts of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but it’s not enough just to know. You need to assent to their truths, but it’s not enough just to assent. It’s not even enough for you to be able to wax eloquent about the theological ramifications of penal substitutionary atonement. The Holy Spirit must graciously apply Jesus Christ to you, so that you personally receive and experience the benefits of his death and resurrection. And one instrument that the Spirit graciously uses to deliver these benefits to you is the Lord’s Supper. And the “mouth” by which you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood is faith (and even faith is not of yourself, it is a gift of God’s sovereign grace).

Every time you see the Lord’s Supper administered, God vividly summons you personally to receive and rest on Christ alone, to feed upon Christ in your heart by faith, to abide in him. At the same time, every time you rightly observe the Lord’s Supper—with the mouth of faith—the Lord generously delivers himself and his blessings to you. “No new revelation is given; no other Christ is made known. But, as Robert Bruce (1554-1631) well said, while we do not get a different or a better Christ in the Supper from the Christ we get in the Word, we may well get the same Christ better as the Spirit ministers by the testimony of the physical emblems being joined to the Word” (Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit, p. 204). “The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16-17).

The author is the pastor of Redeemer OPC in Airdrie, AB. Reprinted from New Horizons, June 2005.

Alan D. Strange writes:

We’ve just entered the year 2017, the five hundredth anniversary of the beginning of the Reformation. Many observances will mark the year, including reflections about what the Reformation achieved in the areas of church and state. Before the Reformation, two models tended to prevail: in the East, the emperor retained control over the church (the Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453); in the West, the church sought to maintain control of her own affairs in the face of attempts of the civil powers to control the church. The problem, however, with the Western approach was that the Bishop of Rome claimed a supremacy over the whole church and at the same time claimed that the church was over the state. Abraham Kuyper put it well with respect to the claim of supremacy over the whole church: “Rome stood up for the liberty and independence of the church, but at the expense of the liberty within the church” (“Church and State”).

With respect to the claim of church over state, Calvin and company clearly distinguished the church from the state, and argued, further, that neither should the church be over the state nor the state over the church. Many of the new Protestant rulers, reacting against Rome’s misguided claims of church over state, made the error of the East and embraced some form of the state over the church (Erastianism, for example, was just such an error). In Scotland, the faithful Presbyterians resisted these claims of the state over the church (as did Calvin in Geneva): they argued, in fact, for the spiritual independency of the church, while at the same time calling for a state covenanted to God to support the true church.

The spiritual independency of the church, as Calvin had taught and as was embraced in the 17th century by Scotsmen like Samuel Rutherford and George Gillespie, developed in America into the doctrine of the spirituality of the church. To be sure the doctrine was often used to keep the church out of the debate over slavery in America. Charles Hodge, professor at Princeton and the most influential Presbyterian of the 19th century, lamented this use of the doctrine, writing (in reflecting on the 1859 GA), “To adopt any theory which would stop the mouth of the church, and prevent her bearing her testimony to the kings and rulers, magistrates and people, in behalf of the truth and law of God, is like one who administers chloroform to a man to prevent his doing mischief.”

Hodge agreed that the church was not ordinarily to interfere in civil affairs, certainly not in areas that divided good men and at which no clear biblical principle was at stake. But he also wrote: “Let Caesar attend to his own affairs. But if Caesar undertakes to meddle with the affairs of God; if the state pass any laws contrary to the law of God, then it is the duty of the church, to whom God has committed the great work of asserting and maintaining his truth and will, to protect and remonstrate.”

Hodge believed that the prophetic voice of the church should not be silenced in the name of spirituality of the church. At the same time, he also believed that the church should not delve into politics. While church members were free to act in accordance with their Christian convictions as they deemed best in the civil realm, Hodge believed that the church as an institution did not act magisterially, as did Rome, but only ministerially and declaratively.

Hodge believed that the Word of God was clear that men ought to submit to duly-constituted civil government. When Gardiner Spring, by way of resolution, proposed to the 1861 GA that it should issue a call for support of the federal government, Hodge argued that the church was not competent to decide the political question of the preservation of the union then dividing the nation. Hodge, though politically a strong union man and supporter of Lincoln (as well as a proponent of emancipation), opposed the Gardiner Spring resolution as a violation of the spirituality of the church.

The church today must proclaim the whole counsel of God, even with respect to the magistrate, but she must resist the politicizing of the church and yield always to Him whose kingdom is not of this world. In a post-modern culture, in which power has replaced truth, it is easy to give way to the politicization of all of life. The church is a spiritual institution given to the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the discipline of her members, all conducted in prayer to God for his blessing upon the appointed means. Rightly construed, the doctrine of the spirituality of the church furnishes guidance for how the church both distinguishes itself from the world and how it gives itself to the world.

from The Spirituality of the Church