# Angus Stewart, the Belgic Confession, and the Pauline authorship of Hebrews



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2015)

I am currently listening to a lecture on the Belgic Confession by my friend, the Revd Angus Stewart. This first lecture is an introduction concerning the historical background of the Belgic Confession and discusses its reception by John Calvin et al. One point around the 26 minute mark struck me as interesting. The Revd Stewart notes that the Belgic Confession names Paul as the author of the letter to the Hebrews, but he argues that this statement is not part of the doctrine of the Confession. He also claims that Calvin agreed with the _doctrine_ of the Belgic Confession, but that Calvin did not concur that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. 

Here is a link to the lecture: http://www.cprc.co.uk/belgicintro.mp3


----------



## yeutter (Oct 19, 2015)

Pastor Stewart's position is consistent with the position taken by other Protestant Reformed clerics.
The Authorized Version of the Bible titles Hebrews "*The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the HEBREWS*" Does that mean our KJVO friends must believe in Paul's authorship of Hebrews?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2015)

yeutter said:


> Does that mean are KJVO friends



"our"


----------



## Guido's Brother (Oct 19, 2015)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I am currently listening to a lecture on the Belgic Confession by my friend, the Revd Angus Stewart. This first lecture is an introduction concerning the historical background of the Belgic Confession and discusses its reception by John Calvin et al. One point around the 26 minute mark struck me as interesting. The Revd Stewart notes that the Belgic Confession names Paul as the author of the letter to the Hebrews, but he argues that this statement is not part of the doctrine of the Confession. He also claims that Calvin agreed with the _doctrine_ of the Belgic Confession, but that Calvin did not concur that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.



Speaking of "the doctrine of the Confession" is rather dangerous and unhelpful. After all, who gets to determine what "the doctrine of the Confession" is? When I subscribe the Belgic Confession (as I do), do I only subscribe "the doctrine"? This seems to me to be applying the approach of some Presbyterians to the Westminster Standards to the Belgic Confession, something which Reformed churches historically haven't done.

In the Canadian Reformed Churches, as well as the Free Reformed Churches of Australia (where I now serve), the Belgic Confession has been changed on this point, for this very reason. If we do not believe that it can be said that Paul is the author of Hebrews, then it should not be in our Confession. So in our edition of the Belgic Confession, article 4 does not list Hebrews as having been written by Paul. This is the approach the church should take if it takes subscription and confessional membership seriously. The Confession is not the Word of God; when necessary it can and must be changed.


----------



## Captain Picard (Oct 21, 2015)

Guido's Brother said:


> Reformed Covenanter said:
> 
> 
> > I am currently listening to a lecture on the Belgic Confession by my friend, the Revd Angus Stewart. This first lecture is an introduction concerning the historical background of the Belgic Confession and discusses its reception by John Calvin et al. One point around the 26 minute mark struck me as interesting. The Revd Stewart notes that the Belgic Confession names Paul as the author of the letter to the Hebrews, but he argues that this statement is not part of the doctrine of the Confession. He also claims that Calvin agreed with the _doctrine_ of the Belgic Confession, but that Calvin did not concur that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews.
> ...



I totally agree. We should remember Phillip Schaff's words on "symbololatry": that it is "essentially Romanizing". 

On an unrelated note, time to go back and read the Three Forms again...I didn't remember that the Belgic had given Pauline authorship for Hebrews.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Nov 4, 2015)

This same line of argument has been used by members of my own denominational family tree in the 19th and 20th centuries to deny creation, the establishment principle and the identity of antichrist.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Nov 4, 2015)

I should add that is the WCF!

But this kind of thing is not new. The statement that "Christ is the head of the church" is doctrine but the statement "man of sin" is not and so on.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 5, 2015)

ProtestantBankie said:


> I should add that is the WCF!
> 
> But this kind of thing is not new. The statement that "Christ is the head of the church" is doctrine but the statement "man of sin" is not and so on.



If people want to deny parts of the WCF, they can leave the OPC. If people want to deny parts of the WCF, that doesn't make them some kind of inferior Christian. It means that on this or that non-gospel issue, that people disagree on interpretation of Holy Scripture.

I weary of people expressing what almost seems like shock and indignation about people not adhering to the exact language of a given principle of a confession. The make-or-break issues of the gospel can not be superceded by commitment to an extra-scriptural standard. You may say "oh I wasn't making a soteriological judgment, I was speaking of (for example) folks who are in a Presbyterian Church but don't acknowledge the Pope as the man of sin!" To be perfectly blunt, I don't think anyone should be kicked out of any church on the planet for their opinion on the identity of the Thessalonican man of sin, or on the identity of the author of Hebrews. 

I brace myself in preparation for the accusations of "biblicism" etc.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Nov 5, 2015)

James thanks for that thought-provoking post. 

Apologies to the Moderators for going off topic here as I respond to this statement which directly impacts me.

I don't think anyone should be kicked out of the church for these things either. What I do think is that if someone has taken a vow in a particular office that the church has to be very clear with those men what the vow means. If it is commonly understood that someone has confessed a literal 6 day creation for example, then a Minister who supports an old-earth view of billion of years if he adheres to that view cannot continue to function as an office-bearer in the church. He should not be "thrown out", he should be corrected or removed from the office of the church and I know of no case in my own Denomination where this has happened.

Similarly the Free Church of Scotland in its confession of faith adheres to an ESTABLISHMENT PRINCIPLE and in 1900 the MAJORITY of the Free Church of Scotland violated their vows and joined the United Free Church. This was against their constitutional position, not only did a Minority of the Church protest, but in law the minority who continued to hold to the Establishment Principle were recognised as the true Free Church of Scotland. This is a fact of history.

It was not that those men who joined the UFC were not Christians (far from it) or that the Ministers and Elders who voted against Exclusive Psalmody (on the basis of the Vows taken at ordination) are not Christians - but rather that the vows taken had always been understood by the church to mean a partiicular thing and change crept in.

If I did not believe in a literal 6-day creation; in the establishment principle; in Baptism by Sprinkling OR Pouring then I could not confess the WCF as a confession of my faith. Would it be ok with any Christian if I were to take a vow before God saying I believe these things and I did not believe them? 

I have not the faintest idea where you got the idea that I believe that Christians who do not adhere to the entire WCF are inferior Christians. I made a 33 word statement about Church history in Scotland and a 38 word statement clarifying what the Confession fo Faith is in the Free Church and giving an example of ONE OF THE THREE areas which I had highlighted in my previous 33 word statement. 

As it happens Angus Stewart could never agree to my confession of faith - that does not make him an inferior Christian, on the contrary he far excells me. Despite his error on the Marriage question


----------



## Jake (Nov 5, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> > I should add that is the WCF!
> ...



Well, not sure why you brought it up, but the OPC adopted a modified confession which does not include some of things Mr. Manderson brought up as being ignored in the WCF.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 7, 2015)

I didn't mean to imply people in this thread were calling certain people inferior Christians.

There does seem to be an intransigence about being able to take exceptions to the WCF and still be called Reformed, though.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 7, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> I didn't mean to imply people in this thread were calling certain people inferior Christians.
> 
> There does seem to be an intransigence about being able to take exceptions to the WCF and still be called Reformed, though.



James, you said earlier that you agree with Rev. Brendenhof's statement that a confession ought to be changed to reflect what is really believed, rather than an officer taking exception to the language of the confession. Here you seem to support taking exceptions. Which is it that you are advocating?


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 8, 2015)

Ideally, I think a church or denomination should change what they confess rather than be inconsistent.

In an imperfect world, I think the confessions need to be treated as "tiered" such that for example, one can hold that Nero was the Thessalonican man of sin without church censure, while pastors or elders (for example) teaching paedocommunion in a confessional context that rejects it should be treated different than scenario one.


----------

