32: We believe that it would be unsafe, from the brief records we have of the way in which the apostles, under the immediate direction of the Lord, addressed their hearers in certain special cases and circumstances, to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day under widely-different circumstances. And we further believe that an assumption that others have been inspired as the apostles were has led to the grossest errors amongst both Romanists and professed Protestants.

33: Therefore, that for ministers in the present day to address unconverted persons, or indiscriminately all in a mixed congregation, calling upon them savingly to repent, believe, and receive Christ, or perform any other acts dependent upon the new creative power of the Holy Ghost, is, on the one hand, to imply creature power, and, on the other, to deny the doctrine of special redemption.

34: We believe that any such expressions as convey to the hearers the belief that they possess a certain power to flee to the Saviour, to close in with Christ, to receive Christ, while in an unregenerate state, so that unless they do thus close with Christ, etc., they shall perish, are untrue, and must, therefore, be rejected. And we further believe that we have no Scripture warrant to take the exhortations in the Old Testament intended for the Jews in national covenant with God, and apply them in a spiritual and saving sense to unregenerated men.

 

Explanation of article 32 by J. A. Watts and G.D Buss:

This is the first of the four so-called “Added Articles.”

For an outline of the history of these and the reason for them, reference should be made by our readers to the introduction.

It is freely acknowledged that there could have been improvements in the wording of these articles to avoid ambiguity. Nevertheless, the truths conveyed are clear when they are carefully considered.

The Added Articles were considered to be essential in the days in which they were framed and are equally important at the present time. We have reason, therefore, to be thankful for the faithfulness of those gracious men who formulated them in 1877 and added them in 1878.

In commenting upon these articles, the first point to make is that the substance of them is implicit in many of the previous ones. When due allowance is therefore made for the somewhat imprecise wording, it will be seen by the reader that where there is agreement with articles 1 to 31, can be no valid disagreement with articles 32-34.

For proof of this, we invite those readers who may have – or have had – reservations about the added articles, to

  1. Refer back to article 3. Read this carefully.
  2. Then read the last sentence of Article 4.
  3. Next, read the three short articles 6, eight and 11, all of which content for the doctrines of predestination, election and the eternal covenant of grace.
  4. Then, finally, read the for very brief articles 25, 26, 27 and 29, especially noting that article 26 states, “We deny also that there is any capability in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever.”

The question may then be asked, are there any new doctrines expressed in the Added Articles which are not already explicit or implicit in articles 1-31? Surely the answer must be “No.”

It is true that the “Added Articles” are more concerned than the earlier Articles are, with the method of presenting the gospel in preaching. Also, more prominence is given to the important distinction between the inspiration of the apostles and the anointing of ministers, but apart from this, there are no different doctrines introduced.

We emphasize that we do not state in this Article No. 32 that ministers are not to be guided in their preaching by the examples of the Apostles. What we do say is that because of the special powers bestowed by the Spirit of God upon the Apostles, it is “unsafe… to derive absolute and universal rules for ministerial addresses in the present day.” Surely this is correct? And if we believe (as we do) in this cessation of the Apostolic gifts, our Article is seen to be in full harmony with the teaching of Scripture.

Many years ago, at a time when there was considerable friendly as well as hostile criticism of this Article, the Gospel Standard Trustees prepared a statement “in the hope that it may be helpful to some who feel difficulty in following the meaning of Article 32.” That statement is reproduced here, in the hope that it may result difficulties for those of the present generation who have misgivings. In no way does the statement alter the truth of the Article, but to some it may express the truth more acceptably:

“We believe that it is the solemn duty of ministers anointed by the Holy Spirit, to preach the gospel in all its parts as the apostles did (Rom. 12. 6-8; Acts 20. 26, 27), according to the measure of grace and ability given (1 Pet. 5. 3), in all matters of doctrine and practice (1 Cor. 2. 2; Eph. 5. 1, 2), they (the Apostles), being inspired to lay down these foundation doctrines of faith and practice in the churches (2 Tim. 3. 16, 17; Eph. 2. 20; 1 Cor. 3. 10, 11). But we believe from the brief but inspired records we have in the Scriptures (John 21. 24, 25; Acts 2. 40) that it would be unwarrantable to adopt universal methods in ministerial addresses (Matt. 3. 7; Matt. 9. 12, 13) in the present day under vastly different circumstances, thereby implying supernatural powers which only the Apostles possessed (Acts 2. 3, 4; Acts 5. 11-13; Acts 8. 5-8; 1 Cor. 12. 8-10), or to assume that ministers in the present day are inspired as the Apostles were, which supposition by some false teachers has led to most grave and destructive errors amongst Romanists and other religious bodies (Matt. 7. 22, 23: Matt. 24. 23; Rev. 2. 2).”

It should perhaps be added that one of the main criticisms of the Added Articles has been the lack of Scripture references to support them. The above statement adequately supply this deficiency.

It is fervently hoped that the reproduction of the above statement will satisfy the minds of those who may generally be troubled about the wording of the Article.

We hope it will also convince all who read these comments that when our Articles were framed in the latter part of the 19th century, it was considered necessary to add the warning in the last sentence regarding the error of assuming “that others have been inspired as the Apostles were.” How necessary is that warning today! We denied the Papal doctrine of apostolic succession and firmly believe that apostolic gifts and powers ceased when the Apostles died.

 

Explanation of article 33 by J. A. Watts and G.D Buss:

This article is a natural continuation of the previous one. It begins with “Therefore.”

in other words, because of what has already been stated, it follows that ministers in the present day need to exercise care and discretion in their ministerial addresses to mixed congregations.

What we are saying here is that if we believe that Almighty God has a chosen people and that they alone will inherit eternal life (see Article 3); and if we also believe that God the Holy Spirit will most certainly called each of these chosen ones by his invincible grace during their lies here upon earth (see Articles 8 and 12), using whatever instrumentally he sovereignly pleases, surely it must be wrong in preaching to present the gospel in such a way as to give the here’s the impression that salvation is available to all and that they have the ability or “free will” either to accept or reject it.

J.H.Gosden explains it in this way: “the apostles in acts 2 and 3 when thousands were converted, did not call upon them to repent without first charging upon them the guilt of crucifying the Lord… Until the sinner is wounded, the gospel cannot be received by means of expectations to ‘repent and believe’… When the minister has clearly laid down the fall and honor rule of man, he is free to preach the whole gospel and may make use of expectations addressed to become convinced and wounded, etc., according to Scripture and the grace given him. It is this preaching which God has ever honored, and not expectations addressed immediately and nakedly to the dead. But to call upon unconvinced sinners to repent and turn to God, many of whom in their own esteem may be believers already, is to call the ‘righteous’whom Christ came not to call. Not having been wounded (that is the vital point!), They are ‘whole’and need not the physician.”

“Sinners can say, and none but they,
‘How precious is the Savior,'”

It is an obvious truth that ministers anointed to preach on as much warranted to preach the gospel in all its parts, subject to the diversity of gifts, as the apostles were, and rightly considered, Article 32 is not a denial of this. But we need to remember that no-one is now inspired as the Apostles were. Their needs, therefore, to be what ministers of a previous generation called “discrimination in the ministry.”

God is a sovereign and can use whatever means he chooses to call his people “out of darkness into his marvelous light,” but it behooves his ministers to observe a right order in ministerial addresses so that their hearers are not deceived regarding the necessity of the new birth or, as the Article expresses it, “the new creative power of the Holy Ghost.”

An alternative wording of this Article, prepared at the same time as the alternative wording of Article 32, is as follows:

“we believe that for ministers in the present day to address unregenerate or unconverted persons as such in a mixed congregation, calling upon them while in a state of nature as rational creatures saving way to repent, believe, and accept Christ, indicating thereby inherent power of themselves to perform spiritual acts of faith dependent upon the creative power of the Holy Spirit, infringes the sovereignty of God the father (Eph. 1. 4-6), the teaching of Christ himself (John 6. 29, 44, 65), to define prerogative of the Holy Ghost (John 1. 11-13; John 3. 5-7) and denies by implication the doctrines of eternal election (Rom. 9. 23) and special redemption (John 10. 11, 15).”

As with Article 32, we hope this wording, with the additional Scripture references, may be helpful to our readers.

“What comfort can save your brain
To those who never felt there will?”

“New life from him we must receive,
Before for sin the right grieve.”

 

Explanation of article 34 by J. A. Watts and G.D Buss:

To avoid unnecessary repetition, the only comments we need to make relative to this article is to reproduce the alternative wording which was prepared at the same time as the alternative wording for articles 32 and 33. This is as follows:

“We believe therefore that every exercise of a spiritual and saving nature is the effect of the new birth (John 3. 7), of being quickened into life from a state of desk in trespasses and sins (Eph. 2. 1; 1 Pet. 1. 23); and of being called by divine grace from the darkness of fallen nature into God’s marvelous light (1 Pet. 2. 9; Col. 1. 13). Therefore to convey the brief (impression) that unregenerate persons possess independent power of themselves to close in with, and accept Christ saving week apart from the quickening grace and teaching of the holy spirit is untrue and is a doctrine to be rejected (John 15. 4, 5). And we also deny that we have scriptural warrant to take the expectations in the Old Testament intended for the Jews in national covenant with God and apply them in a spiritual and saving sense to unregenerate persons.”

we repeat the hope expressed at the end of our comments on article 33, that this alternative wording, together with the additional Scripture references, will be helpful to our readers.

It is recognize of course, that no articles of faith formulated by man can be perfect, but we believe there is nothing in the substance of our “Added Articles” which is not in harmony with Bible truths.