PMW 2026-064 by Larry Ball

Recently, I listened to a Baptist preacher give the invocation on the first day of the 250th Liberty Celebration in Washington, D.C. He gave thanks to God that America was a place where people of every religion were free to worship their own god. That’s one reason I am not a Baptist. Politicians and theologians call his views an expression of the doctrine of “principled pluralism.” Now, with the PCA Ad-Interim Partial Report on Christian Nationalism, Presbyterians have joined the Baptist bandwagon, and eagerly defend what is still called “principled pluralism.”

My contention is that the term “principled pluralism” is no longer functional or valid. The demographics of America have changed dramatically. A more appropriate term is “principled polytheism.” Principled pluralism originally described the belief that all Christian denominations were free to worship publicly in America. Keep in mind that we are talking about public worship and not private worship. Religion in the minds of our early fathers was synonymous with Christianity. Principled polytheism is the view that Islam, Buddhism, Judaism, etc., have the right under the U.S. Constitution to worship freely and publicly in the United States.

What did our Presbyterian forefathers believe about “principled polytheism” when they revised the Westminster Standards in 1788? A case has been made that because they amended the 1646 Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) sections 20.4; 23.3;31.1; Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC) 109; and deleted the original 31.2, they sanctioned what I more properly call principled polytheism. The case has also been made that the PCA BCO Preliminary Principles support the same. They continue to argue that the new section of WCF 23.3 supports “principled polytheism.”

Blessed Is He Who Reads: A Primer on the Book of Revelation
By Larry E. Ball

A basic survey of Revelation from an orthodox, evangelical, and Reformed preterist perspective. Ball understands John to be focusing on the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70. Insightful. Easy to read.

For more Christian studies see: www.KennethGentry.com

I respectfully disagree on the basis of the teaching of the Westminster Standards itself. My position is derived from understanding the reason for the change to WLC 109 and the omitting of any change whatsoever to WLC 108.

In WLC 109 regarding what sins are forbidden in the second commandment, the original version (1646) said that “tolerating a false religion” is breaking the second commandment. Our American forefathers removed that phrase and thus the argument is that they sanctioned the toleration of false religions—not the approval of false religions, but they sanctioned the freedom of public worship of false religions.

It is my contention that in their minds “religions” was a reference to various denominations of Christianity such as the Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc. False religions included the Roman Catholic Church, which had been considered a religion of idolatry since the Reformation in Europe. It had a noticeable presence in Colonial America. It could also have included the Quakers.

The Truth about Salvation By Ken Gentry

A study guide for personal or small group Bible study. Deals with the Christian doctrine of salvation from a Reformed theological perspective. It opens with a study of God as loving Creator, the shows how the first man fell into sin. Shows God’s righteousness requires that sin be dealt with. Presents Jesus as both God and man so that he can be man’s Savior. Includes review questions and questions for further study.Twelve chapters are ideal for one quarter of Sunday School.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Secondly, since our Presbyterian forefathers in 1788 were careful enough to amend one phrase in WLC 109, then they surely did not overlook or become sloppy about WLC 108. Presbyterians love scrutiny. They always have. They left WLC 108 there on purpose.

In WLC 108 they did not delete anything. Notice that it says that part of the duties required in the second commandment are “disapproving, detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.” Notice that they did not use the word “religion” here. Remember, that was a reference to Christianity. They used terms like “false worship,” and “monuments of idolatry.”

These men decided that houses of worship used by Roman Catholics and Quakers should not be dismantled by the civil magistrate. Religious freedom was extended beyond traditional Protestantism. They did not want to repeat the mistakes made in Europe that resulted in the 30-Years War.

Was principled pluralism allowed in our Standards in 1788? Yes, as long as one understands that it was a pluralism of various denominations and Christian sects including the Roman Catholic Church. Was principled polytheism sanctioned? No, not at all. The Civil Magistrate had the responsibility to dismantle public monuments dedicated to such false worship.

The Ad-Interim Committee Partial Report on Christian Nationalism ….

To finish reading the article go to: https://theaquilareport.com/principled-polytheism-and-the-pca/