by Michael Haykin | Aug 25, 2022 | Church History
Catholicity is a beautiful word. It depicts the truth found in texts like John 17:20-23 and Ephesians 4:1-6. It was considered one of the notae of the church by the earliest “servants of the Word” in late Antiquity (the others being oneness, holiness, and apostolicity). It has energized some of God’s choicest servants like Basil of Caesarea and John Calvin. And it is deeply needed in our day.
But, I fear, it is more praised than actively sought. Take the tradition to which I unashamedly belong: that of the Particular, or Calvinist, Baptists who trace their roots back to men like Henry Jessey and Hanserd Knollys and Thomas Patient and John Miles and especially William Kiffen, all of them in the 17the century. I believe they rightly recovered some key apostolic emphases with regard to ecclesiology wherein they came to differ from others who were like-minded in their Reformed theology. Yet they maintained these distinctives with hearts shaped by catholicity.
Some of this, I am sure, has to do with the influence of the irenic Henry Jessey in the early years of the lates 1630s and early 1640s. Persecution during the regimes of Charles II and James II, when they found themselves in prison with Dissenters of various stripes, also played a role in creating this spirit of catholicity.
Whatever the causes one, cannot gainsay the mark of catholicity that is found among these Baptists in the late 17th century (and that despite enormous tensions over certain ecclesial matters like eligibility at the Lord’s Table and hymn-singing). And at the close of the 18th century, one finds it again richly displayed and lived out. Consider Andrew Fuller.
His disagreements with High Calvinists like William Button did not prevent him from remaining on good terms with the London minister and enjoying fellowship with him. He was not slow to critique the Sandemanianism of Archibald MacLean but again Fuller and MacLean enjoyed times of rich fellowship. The same is true of Fuller and his friendship with the Arminian New Connexion Baptist leader Dan Taylor. In Scotland he fellowshipped with various Presbyterians and in England prayed with Evangelical stalwarts like John Berridge. The same is the case with a number of Particular Baptists in Fuller’s day, men like John Oulton of Liverpool, Anne Dutton, Andrew Gifford the younger, James Hinton of Oxford, Daniel Turner, John Fawcett, John Sutcliff of Olney, and John Ryland Jr and his father of the same name, John Collett Ryland.
In our day, we have seen a recovery of the theology of these Fathers from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries but not this nota of their churchmanship. Reformed Baptists, especially in North America, tend to be fractious individuals who have divided over a variety of issues. Indeed, anyone with a knowledge of the fissiparousness of American Fundamentalism might conclude that modern Reformed Baptists might adhere to Reformed theology per se, but their ethos is drawn from the squabbles of twentieth-century Fundamentalism.
When I began to study the Particular Baptist heritage and to sense a call to engage in genuine ressourcement of both the theology and ethos of this tradition, I met a living paragon of this glorious tradition, namely Erroll Hulse. What a remarkable Christian leader and author he was, especially in this area of Christian unity. He played a key role in the publication of my One heart and one soul; John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends and his times and also my Kiffin, Knollys and Keach (1st ed.). In some ways, Pastor Hulse stamped his vision of Christian unity, especially among Baptists who claim to be within the Reformed camp, upon my soul and thus gave me a profound dissatisfaction with present-day Reformed Baptist practice when it comes to this vital nota of the Church.
Oh, that we might preserve the unity of all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity!
Born in England of Irish and Kurdish parents, Michael A.G. Haykin serves as professor of church history & biblical spirituality. Haykin has a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Toronto (1974), a Master of Religion from Wycliffe College, the University of Toronto (1977), and a Th.D. in Church History from Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto (1982). Haykin and his wife, Alison, have two grown children: Victoria and Nigel.
He is the author of a number of books, including The Spirit of God: The Exegesis of 1 and 2 Corinthians in the Pneumatomachian Controversy of the Fourth Century (E. J. Brill, 1994); One heart and one soul: John Sutcliff of Olney, his friends, and his times (Evangelical Press, 1994); Kiffin, Knollys and Keach: Rediscovering Our English Baptist Heritage (Reformation Today Trust, 1996); ‘At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word’: Andrew Fuller as an Apologist (Paternoster Press, 2004); Jonathan Edwards: The Holy Spirit in Revival (Evangelical Press, 2005); The God who draws near: An introduction to biblical spirituality (Evangelical Press, 2007).
Course taught for CBTS: Biblical Spirituality.
by Dewey Dovel | Aug 23, 2022 | Apologetics, Systematic Theology
If there ever was a time in human history to believe in the existence of an unchanging and absolute standard of human morality (“moral absolutes”), the twenty first century is arguably the most ideal. Within the past three years, the results of “the largest and most comprehensive cross-cultural study of [human] morals ever conducted” were released by prominent anthropologists at the University of Oxford.[1] Upon engaging with over 600 ethnographic resources across the span of 60 civilized societies in the world, this research enterprise found seven “moral rules” pervading each of the groups that were surveyed.[2] As disclosed in this investigation’s published report, the “moral rules” that are deemed universal across ethnic and societal lines are recorded below:[3]
- Allocation of Resources to Kin (Family Values)
- Coordination to Mutual Advantage (Group Loyalty)
- Social Exchange (Reciprocity)
- Bravery
- Respect
- Division (Fairness)
- Possession (Property Rights)
The acknowledgement of ubiquitous moral absolutes testify to their identification as a precondition for intelligibility.[4] That is to say, the recognition and enforcement of moral absolutes are not only pragmatic for human flourishing, but they are essential to human existence. Dr. Oliver Scott Curry, Senior Researcher at the University of Oxford’s School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, concurs with these sentiments based on the revelations unveiled by the aforementioned study.
The debate between moral universalists and moral relativists has raged for centuries, but now we have some answers. People everywhere face a similar set of social problems, and use a similar set of moral rules to solve them. As predicted, these seven moral rules appear to be universal across cultures. Everyone everywhere shares a common moral code. All agree that cooperating, promoting the common good, is the right thing to do.[5]
When viewed from a purely sociological perspective, the presence of any continuity of moral convictions entail a host of follow up questions. Arguably one of the most pressing inquiries stemming from the discovery of moral absolutes shared across the globe is the issue of how? Namely, given the vast diversity that exists across the plethora of human civilizations found throughout the world, how can we make sense of the existence of any shared beliefs about morality? How can the existence of moral absolutes be objectively explained? As has been argued throughout the totality of this series, it is the conviction of the author that the best explanation for moral absolutes—like any other precondition for intelligible experience in reality—is grounded in biblical Christianity. Stated differently, only the Christian worldview can objectively account for the prevalence of shared moral convictions across multi-cultural lines.
So, how does Christianity make sense of the moral absolutes that exist throughout the world? From the earliest pages of the biblical record, human beings are said to be created “in the image of God” (Gen. 1:27). To be created in the image of God is to be visual (bodily), analogical representations of the invisible God (Col. 1:15), utilizing the will and intellect to love God and love neighbor perfectly (Matt. 22:36-40).[6] As such, from the first moment of man’s existence, he relished in flawless communion with neighbor (Gen. 2:18-25), and he enjoyed natural religious fellowship with the One who brought him into being from the dust of the earth (Gen. 2:7-15).[7] When speaking in reference to the primeval Creator-creature relation, Scripture indicates that man’s natural religious fellowship with the triune God was concurrent with his intrinsic possession of original righteousness, holiness, and knowledge of the Most High (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10).[8]
While there has been ample debate amongst Christians as to what comprises the substance of man’s original knowledge of God,[9] the comprehensive teaching of Scripture indicates that at the very least, man would have inherently known the 10 Commandments (Rom. 2:14-16).[10] The 10 Commandments, otherwise known as the Decalogue or the Moral Law, are a reflection of God’s character (Ex. 32:15-16); they direct man in how he is to be holy, as God is holy (Lev. 11:44-47; 1 Pet. 1:15-16).[11] Thus, for man to possess concreated knowledge of God—which certainly included concreated knowledge of God’s character—man likewise possessed an original knowledge of God’s universal and unchanging expectations for how to live in this world.[12] Even after man’s fall into sin (Gen. 3:6-24), the moral absolutes contained in the Decalogue did not change, because the changelessness of the 10 Commandments is inextricably bound to the immutability of God’s being (Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:13; James 1:17).[13]
Although the Bible recognizes sinful man’s tendency to suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18-32), it is fascinating to observe man’s inability to eradicate God’s moral law from their purview; indeed, the moral law has been integral to human civilization for millennia.[14] In comparison to the “seven [universal] moral rules” cited from the University of Oxford’s study, the content of the 10 Commandments enjoys significant overlap (Ex. 20:1-17). Consider the following explicit examples from five of the seven moral rules referenced in the study:
- While the principle of family values is consistent with the totality of the Decalogue, the final six commandments specifically pertain to how man should interact with his neighbor (Ex. 20:12-17). As summarized by the Lord Jesus Christ, what greater family value could there be than to love one’s neighbor as themselves (Matt. 22:39)?
- The principle of group loyalty is rooted in loving one’s neighbor as themselves, which is the essence of the final six commandments of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:12-17; Matt. 22:39).
- The principle of reciprocity—doing to others as you would have them do unto you—is not only consistent with the final six commandments of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:12-17) but is also encapsulated in the Golden Rule given by Christ during His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:12).
- The principle of fairness is at the heart of the final six commandments found in the Decalogue, (Ex. 20:13-17) and encompasses the Golden Rule that Christ provided during His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:12).
- The principle of recognizing property rights is applicable to the eighth and tenth commandments found in the Decalogue (Ex. 20:15, 17), although an argument could likewise be made to apply this principle to the commandments against murder, lying, and adultery (Ex. 20:13-14, 16).
In the final analysis, could there be a more compelling or objective basis for moral absolutes in reality than rooting them in the character of God, as innately known by—and as expressly revealed to—His image bearers? According to the reasoning employed by John M. Frame in his volume, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction, the answer is a resounding “NO!”
Moral standards…presuppose absolute moral standards, which in turn presuppose the existence of an absolute personality. In other words, they presuppose the existence of God. But what God?… Of all the major religious traditions, it is only biblical religion that affirms a God who is both personal and absolute. [Only biblical religion sees] that the idea of absolute personality is closely linked to the ideas of a Creator-creature distinction [as reflected in the imago Dei], divine sovereignty, and the Trinity. Compromise these and you compromise the personality of God. This precise pattern of thought is found only in the Bible and in traditions which are heavily influenced by the Bible. Is it then too much to say that morality presupposes the God of the Bible? I think not.[15]
It is the author’s deepest prayer that every reader will embody the mindset reflected by Frame: to recognize the unmistakable intersection between moral absolutes and biblical Christianity. Like every other precondition for intelligibility, moral absolutes affirm the veracity of the Christian worldview and leave all human beings without any excuse for refusing to submit to the lordship of the triune God (Job 12:7-9; Rom. 1:18-23). Therefore, may God raise up a multitude of believers to champion and proclaim these truths throughout all the earth (Matt. 5:13-15).
Soli Deo Gloria!
[1] “Seven Moral Rules Found All Around the World,” University of Oxford, February 11, 2019, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world.
[2] “Seven Moral Rules Found All Around the World,” University of Oxford, February 11, 2019, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world.
[3] Oliver Scott Curry, Daniel Austin Mullins, and Harvey Whitehouse, “Is It Good to Cooperate? Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies,” Current Anthropology 60, no. 1 (February 2019): pp. 47-69, https://doi.org/10.1086/701478.
[4] To review a treatment of the architectonic preconditions for intelligible experience in reality, the reader is encouraged to visit the preceding articles in this series. As chronologically expounded within the preceding installments, the reader will examine a treatment of the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and the reliability of human sense perception.
[5] “Seven Moral Rules Found All Around the World,” University of Oxford, February 11, 2019, https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found-all-around-world.
[6] Michael S. Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 379-406.
[7] Lane G. Tipton, Foundations of Covenant Theology: A Biblical-Theological Study of Genesis 1-3 (Philadelphia, PA: Reformed Forum, 2021), 70.
[8] This reality is further encapsulated in Question and Answer 10 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: “Question: How did God create man? Answer: God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.”
[9] Cornelius Van Til contrasts competing understandings of man’s inherent knowledge of God—and of how man comes to know God—at numerous points in, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God, ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007). However, pages 56-116 and 260-318 are especially useful to the issues discussed in this article.
[10] Richard Barcellos, “How the ‘Uses of the Law . . . Sweetly Comply with . . . the Grace of the Gospel’ (2LCF 19.7),” 1689 Federalism, September 5, 2016, https://www.1689federalism.com/how-the-uses-of-the-law-sweetly-comply-with-the-grace-of-the-gospel-2lcf-19-7/.
[11] Historically, Old Testament commentators have noted a “three-fold division” of the Mosaic Law: moral laws, ceremonial laws, and civil laws. Although each commandment within the three observable categories of the Mosaic Law ultimately points to the holiness of God and to the creaturely commission to be holy as God is holy, it is the moral law that explicitly underscores the unchanging character of God that is to be emulated by His image bearers.
[12] Francis Turretin uses volume 3 of Institutes of Elenctic Theology to delineate how the embedding of the Decalogue on man’s conscience is rooted in the imago Dei: “There is implanted in each one from his birth a sense of deity which does not allow itself to be concealed and which spontaneously exerts itself in all adults of sound mind” (3.1.18).
[13] Philip Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 2010), 308-350.
[14] In the appendix section of The Abolition of Man, (New York, NY: Harper One, 1974), C.S. Lewis documents dozens of moral absolutes that have been observed in ancient human civilizations. Many of these precepts are consistent with the statutes contained in the 10 Commandments (83-101).
[15] John M. Frame, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1994), 100.
Dewey is a Licensed and Ordained minister in the Southern Baptist Convention. He was raised in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, and is happily married to the love of his life, Beall. Dewey played college baseball at Western Texas College, where he received the Associate of Arts degree in General Studies and at The Master’s University, where he received the Bachelor of Arts degree in Christian Ministries. After his collegiate baseball career, Dewey also went on to receive the Master of Arts degree in Biblical Studies from The Master’s University, and the Master of Theology degree in Historical Theology from Campbellsville University. Dewey is currently a doctoral student at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, with a degree emphasis in Christian Worldview and Apologetics. Moreover, Dewey is a contributor to several online journals and believes that his ministry calling is to help God’s people grow in their awareness of what they believe, why they believe what they believe and how to graciously share their faith with those God has placed in their life.
by Sam Waldron | Aug 18, 2022 | Systematic Theology
In this short blog, we return to Chapter 6 of the 1689 entitled: “Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and of the Punishment Thereof.” The last paragraph of the chapter deals with the reality of sin in the believer’s life. Here is what it says: Paragraph 5.
The corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated; and although it be through Christ pardoned and mortified, yet both itself, and the first motions thereof, are truly and properly sin.
2LCF 6:5
Paragraph 4 refers to “actual transgressions.” The present paragraph states that this phrase does not mean real transgressions as if only outward sins were real sin. No, the corruption of our nature is really sinful. The phrase “actual transgressions,” simply means acts of transgression but does not imply that only the acts are sinful.
The corruption of our natures is really sin in itself. This is taught in many texts that prove original sin (Ps. 51:4, 5; Prov. 22:15; Eph. 2:3). It also follows from the definition of sin given above. Any lack of conformity to the law of God is sin. A. A. Hodge says, “from its very essence the moral law demands absolute perfection of the character and disposition as well as action…. God requires us to be holy as well as to act rightly.” Finally, the term, flesh, in the Bible is often used of fallen human nature. It is specifically described as sinful (Rom. 7:17, 18, 25; 8:3-13; Gal. 5:17-24). If our corrupt natures are sinful, then, of course, even their “first motions” are also sinful (Gen. 8:21; Prov. 15:26; 21:4; Matt. 5:27, 28).
The specific point of the paragraph is, however, that the corruptions of believers are sinful. This is probably asserted as over against those known in Puritan times as “antinomians.” One of their traits was to emphasize grace and interpret the doctrine of justification as to deny that Christians sinned or had a sinful nature.
The classic passage on this point is 1 John 1:8-10:
8 If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His word is not in us.
1 John 1:8-10
The general context teaches that Christians walk in fellowship with the God who is light, v. 5. This means, of course, that their lives differ radically and practically from those who walk in the darkness, v. 6. It also means that they are marked by honest dealing with their remaining sin as it is continually exposed by the light in which they walk, vv. 7-10. At this point, John is specifically addressing the claims of Christianized Gnosticism, the antinomianism of his day. Its promoters claimed to be above sin. John’s point is that such claims in themselves manifested the unsaved condition of those who made them. One mark of genuine Christianity was ongoing confession of and cleansing from sin.
Two things make clear the indisputable relevance of these verses to Christians. Firstly, the statements of vv. 8-10 are made in the first person plural. The first person plural pronoun (we or us) is used 13 times in these three verses. Since John is writing to Christians as an apostle of Christ (1 John 1:1-3), the reference must, therefore, be to John himself and his Christian readers. Secondly, the statements about the confession and cleansing of sin in these verses are in the present tense. They are not speaking of past experiences of John and his Christian readers, but of present, ongoing realities in their lives. Verse 9, for instance, could well be translated, “If we go on confessing our sins, He is faithful and just to go on forgiving our sins and cleansing us from all unrighteousness.”
A final point of interest in this passage is that John refutes both the claim to be without a sinful nature (v. 8) as well as the claim that we do not commit sinful actions (v. 10). The teaching of this passage is confirmed by the rest of Scripture (1 Kings 8:46; Ps. 130:3; 143:2; Prov. 20:9; Eccles. 7:20; Rom. 7:14-25; James 3:2). James 3:2, for instance, teaches: “For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body as well.”
The teaching of this final paragraph is an important safeguard against two errors: perfectionism and Pharisaism. It shows that though the standard of Christian behavior remains perfection (1 Pet. 1:15, 16; 2:21, 22; 1 John 2:1), yet no Christian attains that standard in this life. This guards the humble Christian against the bondage of feeling that because he still struggles with sin, he is a second-class Christian or, perhaps, no Christian at all. It also exposes the Pharisaism which concentrates on external conformity to God’s law and thus avoids really confronting its own depth of depravity. God’s law regulates our very natures as well as their inner and most fundamental motions and first actings.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
by Jon English Lee | Aug 16, 2022 | Systematic Theology
1. The Unity of the Decalogue
Some want to claim that the Sabbath command is a ceremonial law that is no longer binding. However, no one would doubt the continuing validity of the other nine commandments. John Murray shows the flawed logic found in arguing that only nine of the Ten Commandments are still binding:
“If we say the fourth commandment is abrogated and the other nine are not, we must understand what we are saying. It would indeed be an amazing phenomenon that in the heart of the decalogue there should be one commandment — and one given such prominence and meticulous elaboration — that is totally different from the others in this regard that they are permanent and it is not. Surely no one will dispute that in the Old Testament the ten commandments constitute a well-rounded and compact unit. And surely no one will dispute that the Old Testament is itself throughout conscious of that fact. If the ten commandments were a loose and disjointed collection of precepts, there would be nothing very extraordinary about the supposition we are now discussing. But that is precisely what the decalogue is not. And so to establish this supposition that the fourth commandment is abrogated, when the other nine are not, would require the most explicit and conclusive evidence.
As we read the Old Testament we do not find any warrant for discrimination between the fourth and the other nine. Nor indeed do we find any intimation in the Old Testament that in the Messianic age the Sabbath law would cease. If any commandment is emphasized it is the fourth.”[1]
The unity of the decalogue makes the abrogation of a single command seem very strange indeed. Some want to mix together the Sabbath command and the ‘judgments,’ commands given by God after the Ten commandments that were based upon the moral commands. This mixing of categories is unjustified because of the uniqueness of the Decalogue.
2. The Uniqueness of the Decalogue
While the Israelites were at Sinai, God gave many laws. However, the moral commands of God had a certain primacy over the other ‘judgments.’ First, the Ten Words were the only laws written by the finger of God himself. Second, unlike the rest of the laws that were spoken, the Ten Commandments were carved into tablets of stone. Third, none of the other laws were placed in the Ark of the Covenant; rather, the Ten Words were placed in the Ark at the metaphorical ‘feet’ of the Almighty himself. Fourth, the “literary shape” of their delivery demonstrates a distinction between the “Ten Commandments” and the “Judgments.”
Peter Gentry explains that the headings of the two distinct passages (Ten Words, Ex. 20; and The Judgments, Ex. 21-23) and the use of specific terms indicates, “the broad outline and shape of the text.”[2] Furthermore, the difference in sentence construction distinguishes the different sections. He explains, “The Ten Words are presented as absolute commands or prohibitions, usually in the second person singular. They are general injunctions not related to a specific social situation…By contrast, the Judgements are presented as case laws. These are presented as if they were court decisions functioning as precedents.”[3] Clearly these examples are indications of some internal distinctions within the law of the Lord. The perpetual moral standards behind the Ten Words are given primacy over the other ‘judgments,’ which would eventually prove to be temporary.
3. Old Testament expectation of the Decalogue’s Perpetuity
The Decalogue was never shown to be made up of laws of varying application and duration. The Sabbath command in the Ten Commandments is merely an official codification of the creation ordinance. The moral imperative may have been given ceremonial and civil accouterments, but the moral imperative remained (and remains) unchanged. Murray concludes,
“If there had been in the Old Testament some evidence that would create a presumption in favour of discrimination, if there had been even something that would justify a strong suspicion that in the Messianic age the Sabbath law would no longer bind, then, of course, even slight confirmation from the New Testament might clinch that suspicion and warrant the inference that the fourth commandment had been abrogated. But no such suspicion is created and the evidence is altogether against such a supposition.”[4]
Nothing in the Old Testament gives us an indication that the Sabbath Command was a temporary command peculiar to the Jews.
In coming posts in this series on the Sabbath I will examine, among other things, Jesus’s view on the Sabbath, whether the New Testament abrogates the Sabbath command, plus some implications of the doctrine of the Sabbath on ecclesiology.
[1] John Murray, The Fourth Commandment According to Westminster Standards, http://www.the-highway.com/sabbath1_Murray.html (Accessed 4/30/2013).
[2] Peter John Gentry and Stephen Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: a Biblical-theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2012), 305. Although Gentry and Wellum do reject the tri-fold categories of ceremonial, moral, and civil law, it is interesting that they clearly see and teach the textual evidences of the uniqueness of the decalogue from the judgments.
[3] Ibid., 306.
[4] John Murray, The Fourth Commandment According to Westminster Standards, http://www.the-highway.com/sabbath1_Murray.html (Accessed 4/30/2013).
