# "Solo Confession"?



## Gryphonette (Jan 26, 2007)

Something about the FV/AA arguments has been making me squirm for a while, and not just the content of them....it'd be more ephemeral than that.

One of Rich's "hardball" questions that he'd suggested be posed to Doug Wilson (what happened with that interview, BTW? anyone hear it?) helped the cause of the squirm to be clarified for me.

Over the years as I've read the various FV/AA aficionados promote and defend their distinctive doctrines, the hands-down most common defense offered is that their interpretation can be gleaned from the WCF. Apparently they are convinced that _so long as_ whatever they are saying has in some way been arrived at via the WCF, they _are_ "subscribing" to it, so leave 'em alone.

Huh.

Yet it's not at all uncommon to read one of them castigate Baptists, for example, as practicing "solo Scriptura", generally translated to mean "Just me and my Bible." Private interpretation without reference to how the Church has historically and traditionally interpreted it.

You have probably figured out where I'm going with this. 

Presbyterian denominations have a "traditional interpretation" of the WCF, do they not? Clearly it's possible to take that document and, depending upon which statements are given more weight, arrive at varying doctrinal positions. One belongs to _this_ Presbyterian denomination because it interprets the WCF in _this_ way, while someone else joins _that_ Presbyterian denomination for it interprets the WCF in _that_ way. If there's one thing I've picked up from years of hanging around Presbyterians, it's that while the differences might be subtle - particularly to a nonpresbyterian - they are definitely present, and often viewed as important.

Or am I mistaken? It's always possible, my not having ever been Presbyterian myself.

Assuming I'm not, though, it seems unreasonable for those espousing the FV/AA to take the stance that they are entitled to apply _their _own private interpretation of the WCF, never mind the historic, traditional interpretation of their denomination, particularly considering how condemning they can be about private interpretation of the Bible.

I'm puzzled as to why they would believe it's acceptable for them to insist upon the right to privately interpret the WCF, the foundational document of their denomination, while simultaneously - and often quite emphatically - denouncing others who disagree with them as having descended to the depths of "solo Scriptura."

_Solo_ _Scriptura_ is bad, but _solo_ _Confession_ is okay?

Speaking for myself, I don't think so.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

I hear what you are saying and yet the WCF states quite clearly that it is not an authority to be used to judge:

*Chapter 1, Article X.* "The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 26, 2007)

Not that I would in any way, shape, or form disagree with that, mind, but I'd be a bit at a loss as to what the point of the WCF _is_, then. If it can be essentially overridden by anyone who insists their way of interpreting either the Confession or Scripture itself is more accurate than the Confession, doesn't that rather kick the legs out from under the main reason for a "confessional" denomination's existence?


----------



## turmeric (Jan 26, 2007)

The Scripture should be our rule for faith and practice - and the FV/AA people are challenging the meaning of _that._ 

I see what you're saying, though; it's an interesting point. Kinda reminds me of people who think the Constitution is a "living document."


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> Not that I would in any way, shape, or form disagree with that, mind, but I'd be a bit at a loss as to what the point of the WCF _is_, then.



Or any confessional document for that matter. It is this question/issue which has caused me to re-think the purpose of confessional documents. I hold to the Thirty Nine Articles which makes all those who do a denomination and so provides a common ground but Scripture is a trump card so to speak and overrides the confessional document.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 26, 2007)

But "Scripture as trump card" is the tool the ECUSA, PCUSA, et al have used to gut their respective denominations of divine truth, It seems to me.

When a particular verse is taken as normative - say, "God is love" - and is used to pound all other verses referring to His wrath into pitiful little puddles, those doing so declare they _are_ holding to Scripture.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> But "Scripture as trump card" is the tool the ECUSA, PCUSA, et al have used to gut their respective denominations of divine truth, It seems to me



Obviously it must be used correctly. God is love but he is also justice etc. (I know you agree but was just making the point). 

If a Confession taught X but Scripture taught Y we would be duty bound to disagree with the Confession.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 26, 2007)

*Oh, very good!*



turmeric said:


> Kinda reminds me of people who think the Constitution is a "living document."





Amazing how the more the Constitution "lives", the deader our freedoms seem to become. 

We love to tweak, don't we, though? If there's one thing in the world we humans find nigh unto impossible it's to just _leave something alone_. 

Or as my mother says, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 

But that's no fun. Always we pick at the tiny frayed area, and almost inevitably wind up creating a whacking _big _frayed spot, sometimes to the point of unraveling the whole thing.

Tweaking and improving the Constitution. Tweaking and improving the WCF.

Oh, yeah. _That's_ a good plan.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

And I thought our moto was _reformada, semper reformanda_?


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 26, 2007)

You know, I've never quite gotten the point of that particular slogan. I know what it _means_, but the practical applicability has eluded me.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> You know, I've never quite gotten the point of that particular slogan.



It simply means that we are to test everything against the Scriptures. So whilst the WCF is good it is not perfect and can be reformed closer to the word of God...can't it?


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 26, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> It simply means that we are to test everything against the Scriptures. So whilst the WCF is good it is not perfect and can be reformed closer to the word of God...can't it?



Theoretically I'm sure you're right, but based upon past experience the likelihood of the WCF being "improved" through a little judicious tweaking seems remote.

Come to that, why stop at the WCF? Heaven knows the various creeds omitted quite a bit most of us would say really_ ought_ to be included. Why not put those on the table as well, as long as we're tweaking and reforming and improving historic confessions?





You know how it goes....repaint the window sills in the kitchen and the next thing you know you're steaming off the old wallpaper.





I clearly recall the Scriptural shenanigans that went on in an effort to haul the Episcopal church here in the USA out of its "error" of patriarchy. Keep in mind, all those "improvements" made in the ECUSA and many other mainline denominations were done with a reformational zeal.

To be honest, evaluating the result of the "reformations" of the past half-century, I'd be strongly in favor of changing the motto to "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> Theoretically I'm sure you're right, but based upon past experience the likelihood of the WCF being "improved" through a little judicious tweaking seems remote.
> 
> Come to that, why stop at the WCF? Heaven knows the various creeds omitted quite a bit most of us would say really_ ought_ to be included. Why not put those on the table as well, as long as we're tweaking and reforming and improving historic confessions?
> 
> ...



I am just glad I adhere to the Thirty Nine Articles, Lambeth Articles and the Canons of Dordt.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jan 26, 2007)

It's not that confessions have no authority. There's a difference between ultimate and penultimate authority.

A confession as a constitutional document has real, penultimate authority. Everyone always quotes WCF 10 as if that's the last word, but there is also 31.2 which says:



> II. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in his Word.



This is real, if penultimate authority. It was a synod/assembly that formed the WCF. That document has genuine authority on all who subscribe it.

The question is how does one subscribe it? Honestly, dishonestly? In good faith, bad faith, or no faith? "Insofar as" it is biblical (_quatenus_ - who gets to say what "insofar as" is?) or "because" it is biblical (_quia_ - the earliest Reformed approach to subscription).

rsc


----------



## bookslover (Jan 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> It simply means that we are to test everything against the Scriptures. So whilst the WCF is good it is not perfect and can be reformed closer to the word of God...can't it?



Of course it can. The secondary standards are not infallible, having been written by men not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It should always be assumed going in that the secondary standards can be improved.

What's scary to me is that there are some in the Reformed camp (by no means all) who think too highly of these documents. On at least two occasions, I've people tell me that not only can these documents not be changed, they can't even be questioned. Fortunately, that is very much a minority view (the authors themselves of the standards would vigorously disagree!), but it illustrates my point.

In some circles, too, I've noticed a tendency, in theological discussion, to go to the standards first, rather than the Scriptures. I appreciate that the standards are a very convenient summary of the things we believe. But I believe it's important to always go to the Scriptures first.

The secondary standards (whichever ones one holds to) are excellent summaries (as I've said) - they wouldn't have lasted for more than 300 years if they weren't. They aren't any less than that - but they aren't any more than that, either.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 27, 2007)

I think some of you are missing an excellent point that was made in the OP. Nobody has argued that the Confessions are infallible or cannot be reformed. The issue is this: What is the role of private interpretation within the context of a larger Church body?

_Solo_-Scriptura is the idea that there exists no authority between the words of Scripture and Rich for him to determine the proper meaning of Scripture. If my interpretation differs, I can merely point to the fact that I believe in "Scripture Alone" for my authority and don't need a Church at all to tell me what it means. Adultery? Well _I_ read the Scriptures to be saying that it's OK. Elders in my Church have no authority to compell me to submit to the _proper_ interpretation of the Word of God because nothing stands between me and the Bible.

That is not the Reformed tradition. Confessions, as Dr. Clark has noted, form a real authority where the Church council has met and formed what is the acceptable understanding of the Scriptures. Can the documents be reformed? Yes, but not by me. They need to be reformed by the Church. If I adopt them, as a minister, making a Godly oath to uphold them then I must submit to their doctrine excepting those portions which the Church has _allowed_ me to take exception to.

What I do not have the right to do, however, is re-interpret what the Confessions mean where they confess something.  I am not a Church council, no matter how clever I am or no matter how many books I've read. Further, if I've taken oath to teach the system of doctrine contained therein then it is the gravest sin to do otherwise until released from that oath. Now I can claim I am not but God will be the final Judge of all things.

Some may find this to be Roman Catholic: what do you mean the Church can say what the proper meaning of the Word of God is? The difference is that the Church stands under the Word of God and, though it is the interpreter, it is not infallible in this role. It need not be, however. Imagine you're a father who is commanding your son to do something. May you be in error and still require obedience of him on certain points? In a million different cases, yes. In some cases, no but those are the exceptions. Authority need not be infallible to be real. What we have lost is the ability to make Godly appeal to authority, to labor patiently, not dividing, but working constructively within the Church to reform, if necessary. We have lost the ability to submit when it's not something we would do. We believe we have the right to hold and to teach every conviction even when the Church has told us not to. It is rebellion, it is schismatic and it is not of God. In fact, it is rebellion even when you're right on a disputable point of doctrine. A son has no right to slap his father over an error that his father has made.

Thus, Anne is absolutely right. These men are like independents. They claim to be Presbyterians and make fun of Baptists for the way they handle government and Scripture but that's exactly how they handle things. They lack the Godly patience and maturity that a minister is supposed to posses. They believe that their brilliant minds, knowledge of Church history, knowledge of language, or special insight gives them a pass in the area of submission to authority.

It does not. And God will judge such schismatics.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 27, 2007)

*[awed] Wow. Yes. Exactly.*



What Rich said really _was_ what I meant. 

Sure sounded a lot better when he said it, though.





Rich, you just _always_ feel free to come along behind me and tell the nice people what I meant to say.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 27, 2007)

> Yet it's not at all uncommon to read one of them castigate Baptists, for example, as practicing "solo Scriptura", generally translated to mean "Just me and my Bible." Private interpretation without reference to how the Church has historically and traditionally interpreted it.



One of the major issues with 'them' is that they are saying that historically, the reformed held to these ideas. i.e Murray, Calvin, and a few others often quoted.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Some may find this to be Roman Catholic: what do you mean the Church can say what the proper meaning of the Word of God is? The difference is that the Church stands under the Word of God and, though it is the interpreter, it is not infallible in this role.



But we must allow them to be subject to change as greater light is shed upon the issues. To say that the Holy Ghost hath led us into all truth and this is contained in the WCF and since then the Holy Ghost has stopped leading us into truth is, in my opinion, absurd.

*However*, there is indeed a role for confessional documents as a point of _discipline_. Take for example the Bishop of Durham - the Rt Revd N. T. Wright. He openly denies Article 11 of the Thirty Nine Articles which relates to justification. The Articles define what the CofE believes and so if he does not agree with them then he should leave (the sooner the better as far as I am concerned).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> But we must allow them to be subject to change as greater light is shed upon the issues. To say that the Holy Ghost hath led us into all truth and this is contained in the WCF and since then the Holy Ghost has stopped leading us into truth is, in my opinion, absurd.
> 
> *However*, there is indeed a role for confessional documents as a point of _discipline_. Take for example the Bishop of Durham - the Rt Revd N. T. Wright. He openly denies Article 11 of the Thirty Nine Articles which relates to justification. The Articles define what the CofE believes and so if he does not agree with them then he should leave (the sooner the better as far as I am concerned).



Richard,
So you believe that there is more information God has yet to reveal to His church _doctrinally_?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> But we must allow them to be subject to change as greater light is shed upon the issues. To say that the Holy Ghost hath led us into all truth and this is contained in the WCF and since then the Holy Ghost has stopped leading us into truth is, in my opinion, absurd.



Richard,

You really must learn to read more carefully. I did not claim that the WCF is un-reformable. Read again.

If you're saying that the Holy Spirit is still revealing new information then that's a different matter.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 27, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> So you believe that there is more information God has yet to reveal to His church _doctrinally_?



Not if we are talking about continuous revelation for that (revelation) ended with the close of the Canon. However Christ has given his Church teachers and he has also promised to lead the Church ino all truth. So I would accept doctrinal development as being legitimate. I hope that clears up any confusion. 



SemperFideles said:


> You really must learn to read more carefully. I did not claim that the WCF is un-reformable. Read again.



It was not my intention to imply that you had rather I was reiterating your point "Can the documents be reformed? Yes, but not by me. They need to be reformed by the Church." My appologies


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> Not if we are talking about continuous revelation for that (revelation) ended with the close of the Canon. However Christ has given his Church teachers and he has also promised to lead the Church into all truth. So I would accept doctrinal development as being legitimate. I hope that clears up any confusion.



What doctrines would the church _need_ more "development" in? Why would they need more development?


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 27, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> What doctrines would the church _need_ more "development" in? Why would they need more development?



The covenant for starters. But really we must make sure that we ensure that what our creeds teach is actually what Scripture teaches. When St. Paul was teaching the galatians would he have explained the Trinity as it has been developed doctrinally? We should improve upon what has gone before where possible.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> The covenant for starters. But really we must make sure that we ensure that what our creeds teach is actually what Scripture teaches. When St. Paul was teaching the galatians would he have explained the Trinity as it has been developed doctrinally? We should improve upon what has gone before where possible.



I disagree. Paul knew the things of God much clearer than any of us. In that, I believe he taught the doctrine even more accurately than us today.



> 2 Corinthians 12:2-4 2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven. 3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth; ) 4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 27, 2007)

Now, Scott, I _know_ that wink wasn't in the original!


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 27, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> One of the major issues with 'them' is that they are saying that historically, the reformed held to these ideas. i.e Murray, Calvin, and a few others often quoted.



My point, however, isn't whether or not _some_ Reformed at _some_ time have _ever _held to their ideas so much as whether their particular denominations have historically and traditionally held them.

An easy illustration is whether the Church is described as visible/invisible versus historical/eschatological.

To be fair to them, the historical/eschatological theory is certainly an interesting one, and might even have an awful lot going for it, theologically speaking.

Only problem is, that's not how the PCA, for instance, or Presbyterianism in general, has ever described the Church. 

They're citing the Reformers in the same way the ECF's will be searched and quoted to support prayers to the dead or something like that. Just because there's a verse in Revelation that _could_ sound like believers on earth praying to believers in glory, and just because some ECF's wrote stuff that at least appears to support that belief, doesn't mean it's incumbent upon the rest of us to accept praying to the dead as a valid doctrine.

It's not what OUR faith tradition holds.

If the new "standard" for Reformed denominations is that _anything_ can be taught from the pulpit so long as the one teaching it _personally_ believes it to be biblical, not _against _the WCF, plus can dredge up a citation or two from Calvin or Murray that sounds as if it's in agreement, then be assured I'll be over here in my nondenominational Bible church keeping a seat for y'all, for your denominations are going to fall apart in short order.

Remember, God is a God of order, 'tis true, but we live in a fallen world due to sin, where disorder rules unless we strive hard to keep it at bay. Permitting such a lax standard for what is taught to exist is guaranteed to lead to doctrinal disorder, which will eventually be the end of your respective denominations.


----------



## Machaira (Jan 27, 2007)

AV1611 said:


> And I thought our moto was _reformada, semper reformanda_?



Regarding this, I just heard Doug Wilson as he was being examined, lament that "reformada, semper reformanda" is a Reformed rallying cry until someone actually attempts it. This is absurd seeing that the FV proponents are really talking about a major overhaul of Reformed doctrine, not reform. Do these men really think that we have been so out of whack with Biblical doctrine for the past 300+ years that no one noticed until they came along? 

(I know you're not arguing in favor of FV. I'm just musing here.)


----------



## bookslover (Jan 27, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I think some of you are missing an excellent point that was made in the OP. Nobody has argued that the Confessions are infallible or cannot be reformed. The issue is this: What is the role of private interpretation within the context of a larger Church body?
> 
> _Solo_-Scriptura is the idea that there exists no authority between the words of Scripture and Rich for him to determine the proper meaning of Scripture. If my interpretation differs, I can merely point to the fact that I believe in "Scripture Alone" for my authority and don't need a Church at all to tell me what it means. Adultery? Well _I_ read the Scriptures to be saying that it's OK. Elders in my Church have no authority to compell me to submit to the _proper_ interpretation of the Word of God because nothing stands between me and the Bible.
> 
> ...



Part of the problem is that Protestantism, and the Reformed church in particular, has no central doctrinal authority, like the Roman Catholic magisterium (or whatever they call it). Back in the earliest centuries after the canon was closed, those first four or five church councils of the early church fathers were considered authoritative because the church of the Roman Empire was small enough so that those early councils could speak authoritatively for everyone. But now the church is so large and fractured (how many microdenominations are there now among the Reformed?) that no one speaks authoritatively for anyone, anymore.

For example, the OPC could gather all its theologians together as a council and decide that X passage of Scripture should be interpreted in X fashion, or that X doctrine needs to be redefined in X manner, and that would be considered an authoritative ruling - but only within the OPC. The PCA could look at the OPC's conciliar decisions and say, "Well, that's nice for them, but we're not interested. We'll stick to the old way of interpreting that passage or doctrine."

Also, doctrinal understandings do change over time. A good example is eternal generation. The early church fathers thought it was a nifty way of protecting Christ's deity and of helping to explain the Trinity, but EG looks a lot less impressive now. Systematic theologians and other writers (Calvin, Boettner, Grudem, Reymond, Frame) have been increasingly unhappy with it for several decades now. Unfortunately, however, the Reformed churches don't have some sort of central theological authority (as I was saying) to come to a definitive conclusion about these things.

Just my


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 27, 2007)

"Part of the problem is that Protestantism, and the Reformed church in particular, has no central doctrinal authority, like the Roman Catholic magisterium (or whatever they call it)."

[wryly] Considering how helpful a "central doctrinal authority" has been for the RCC (assumption of Mary, anyone?), having one is clearly not a panacea for all doctrinal ills.

Human nature naturally gravitates to the "strong man" or king type of government ("We want a king like the other nations have!" cried the Israelites) which the LORD disapproves of ("You won't _like_ it", He warned), but we also cannot seem to help gilding any and all lilies within reach.

So there's the RCC on the one hand, and myriad Protestant groups on the other hand.

Situation normal, In other words,. ;^)


----------



## JohnV (Jan 27, 2007)

Richard:

Thanks for reposting Rich's post. 

I disagree with you, however. Yes, I understand the idea you're conveying, how we do not have that central authority stucture that the RCC had before the Reformation, and how this lack has allowed fragmentation within the churches and denominations. But this is because the Reformed churches recognize also the authority and responsibility of the individual in matters of doctrine. 

The entire denomination may be embroiled in some doctrine or practice which is not wholly Biblical, or even be on the road to apostasy. In this case the individual bears responsibility to himself not to follow, even if the authority in the denomination compels him to. The individual denominations are not infallible either. 

It is from this that we have derived the Western sense of demoncracy: the individual's responsibility to conform to the truth as revealed by God both in general revelation and in special revelation. 

The Confessions do reflect the doctrines of the Word, but their scope is temporal. That is, men have formulated these statements within the context of their limitedness, their finite nature. This is in contrast with the unlimited and infinite wisdom of the Word of God. The Confessions are an ecclesiastical covenant that defines the historic development of coming to understand the Word of God; and in that way is binding upon all who submit to that covenant. The terms of the covenant are such that it keeps all those who sign on within the historic and Biblical creeds of the Church. 

What we are seeing, and what I think Anne is pointing to, is that some have still found a way to make the doctrines of the Word of God subjective and personal instead of objective and universal. The Confessions do not represent that kind of loose covenant; it does not represent a kind of Christianity within Christianity as a whole, but represents what Christianity as a whole believes. 

We all have an office to fulfill in that respect. We are all called to stand fast, even if the churches around us are falling from this high doctrinal standard. The churches' authority structure does not trump the individual's responsibility, but rather calls him to it. The churches have no right remove what the Word imposes, or to impose what the Word does not impose; and when they breach that wall, then the individual must stand in defence against it. And yet the individual may not use his position to undermine the legitimate authority of the Church. 

The two, the corporate and the individual responsibilities, are never at odds, really. When they do appear to be at odds, then that is an indication to us that we are not understanding some element as we could or should. This lack can be in the corporate or individual level, but usual is in the individual level. But a group of individuals can grow into a larger group, and eventually into a majority. Or it could be a minority who are very influential or persuasive, or even politically advantaged by savvy lobbying. We've seen it before, and we'll see it again. But in the same way, orthodoxy is not merely a corporate necessity, but also an individual necessity. 

The Reformed Confessional system recognizes both, and calls us to both. I don't think that a central authority stucture is the answer, for we all know the weakness of men. The great democratic systems of government are based upon this "balance of power", as they call it. It isn't a balance so much as it is a recognition of the limitedness of men and the sovereignty of God.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 27, 2007)

*A thought spurred by some of the comments...*

Something that has also been nagging at me is how there are actually separate questions regarding the FV and the PCA, yet they are tending to be smushed together.

It seems to me the _first_ question to be dealt with by the PCA should be: Is that which TE Wilkins (not to pick on him, only AAPC is rather on the front burner, so to speak) has been teaching "new" or not, setting aside whether or not it is correct or at least allowable? Is it the same as the PCA has traditionally taught? Does it align with the PCA's interpretation of the WCF?

A point I'm not certain is being given the weight it deserves is that unless it's Joel Osteen's or another individual's church, the pastor or TE does_ not _own his pulpit. Even at Christ Chapel the senior pastor once stressed that he doesn't get to preach any ol' doctrine he wants to...he is bound by the church's charter, and the group who "interprets" _that_ is the elder board. I've yet to attend a Bible study where the man teaching it didn't take pains to assure the class that his lesson plan had been submitted ahead of time to the elder board for review and approval. (Which, BTW, leads to an intriguing question...what _about_ the elder board at AAPC? Were they doing their job? If one of the pastors at Christ Chapel had taken it upon himself to preach as TE Wilkins has, he'd have quickly received a message from the elder board, requesting a moment of his time.)

Very possibly my understanding of Presbyterian ecclesiology is faulty, but it appears to me that Christ Chapel, an independent, nondenominational Bible church, is in _some_ respects more "Presbyterian" on a practical level than some Presbyterian churches.

I'm reminded of back in the mid-70's, I'm thinking it was, when the first female "priest" was "ordained" in the ECUSA by a rogue bishop, who didn't give a rap _what_ his denomination's rules and tradition was....he was satisfied in his own mind that refusing to ordain women was unscriptural, so by golly, he was gonna ordain one. So he did. And in what has to have been one of the greatest ecclesiastical blunders of the last century, after huffing and puffing and lots of smoke and ash, the ECUSA said the woman's ordination was "illicit but valid."

"Illicit but valid." _There's_ a concept for you. As may be imagined, the maverick bishop's receiving a lot of frowny faces and finger shakings and cries of "Shame on you!" did absolutely nothing to dissuade others from realizing the ECUSA's PowersThat-Be were essentially toothless tigers. It didn't take long before the new, albeit illicit, teaching of "Why, _sure_ women can be priests!" had taken over the ECUSA and become legitimate.

Make no mistake, whether it's a bishop ordaining someone who ought not be ordained, or a pastor teaching a new variant of an established doctrine, rogue elements in denominations lead to disorder and chaos. This is why I say it's immaterial at this point whether the FV is correct or not...if its correct but NEW, it should have never been taught before being approved by the PCA's ruling authorities. The PCA's SJC could be full to the brim with FV supporters and they should still discipline TE Wilkins for going off on his own as he has. 

Hauling in new doctrine should not be judged according to the principle of Monday morning quarterbacking. It should get the denomination's seal of approval _prior_ to being preached, _not _preached first and defended afterward. I truly hope the PCA (and the other Reformed denominations) first step back and look at the big picture question of "Do Reformed pastors own their pulpits?", in lieu of focusing solely on whether or not the FV is correct.

Not that the latter question isn't to be decided, of course. Just that there's an overriding principle in play which, if ignored as the ECUSA did when it was their turn, will come back to haunt the PCA.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jan 27, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> Not that I would in any way, shape, or form disagree with that, mind, but I'd be a bit at a loss as to what the point of the WCF _is_, then. If it can be essentially overridden by anyone who insists their way of interpreting either the Confession or Scripture itself is more accurate than the Confession, doesn't that rather kick the legs out from under the main reason for a "confessional" denomination's existence?


 
It regularly would. This is why the Scottish ambassadors would not even allow the discussions to take place until.........what?

Until the Solemn League and Covenant was *signed and accepted by the assembly.*

At that point, you had theologians and pastors vowing to uphold the biblical truth contained in the document. If it was not biblical, they didn't put it in. But they were now attached to it by vow in order to "uphold" the truth as it was seen "in the best Reformed churches."

So the Westminster Standards are not, in and of themselves, inspired or given from heaven, but they are an external witness to the truth of the Gospel and its theological and practical appendages.

This is where the argument for Confessional Subscriptionism come into play. Either one is subscribing, or they are not.

One is lip service with convenient changes. The other upholds the Confession and the intent behind it.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 27, 2007)

JohnV said:


> Richard:
> 
> Thanks for reposting Rich's post.
> 
> ...



I should clarify a little by saying that I'm not _advocating_ some kind of central authority for the Reformed world (must less all of conservative Protestantism) - sotto voce: unless _I'm_ in charge, of course [heh, heh] - I was merely trying to point out why we seem to be so theologically and ecclesiologically fractured, as opposed to Rome (or at least the way Rome used to be). (Gryphonette's comment about Rome's "leaders" coming up with such bogus doctrines as the assumption of Mary is well taken.)

I just get nervous whenever I sense that someone is putting a little _too_ much faith in man-made secondary standards and not in the Bible, since the Bible is both infallible and inerrant (in the autographs) and all secondary standards are, in principle, both errant and fallible.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jan 27, 2007)

bookslover said:


> I just get nervous whenever I sense that someone is putting a little _too_ much faith in man-made secondary standards and not in the Bible, since the Bible is both infallible and inerrant (in the autographs) and all secondary standards are, in principle, both errant and fallible.



I'm not sure I know what this means. My point is that the Confessions serve as a common _confession_ of the Church saying: "This is what we believe the Scriptures say...." If one sees the Confessions in this light then there is little danger that one is going to look away from the Scriptures. It's rather like arguing that we're nervous about a Pastor preaching and teaching the Word of God because he's errant and fallible but the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant. Why not just give the Bible to each person on Sunday tell them the verses to read and instruct them to interpret it for themselves?

Oh, that's right, the minds of the congregants are fallible and errant too. If left to their own then "...everyone will do what is right in their own eyes...." The minister who departs from a Church confession based on his interpretation of Scripture that differs is doing no less. The difference is in the degree of sophistication but not the autonomous drive that underlies it.

Yet again, the idea here is not that the Confessions are un-Reformable but the movement has to be more than a few people departing. Work to move the denomination. A GA may not be the entire Reformed Church but it's superior to a few impatient schismatics. I simply don't believe the excuse that "...well we don't have a central Christian authority to make such changes..." is a warrant for confessional deviation at an individual level that allows a minister to begin teaching contrary doctrine within that Reformed body. He has *MADE AN OATH* to subscribe to a Confession and has not announced that he is departing from it. What's the big deal that Saul killed the Gibeonites anyway?


----------



## JohnV (Jan 27, 2007)

Well, I've seen both sides of it. I've seen what Richard is talking about. The Confessions become as infallible as the Bible, and in fact replaces the Bible. I've talked to some to whom you could quote to Bible to until the cows come home, and it makes no difference to them. But quote the church's standards, and all of a sudden you make in impact on them. That has actually happened. 

I think that the Bible can be made to become subjective either way; it is up to the person to make of it what he thinks best without anyone or anything holding him to account. This can be done by either regarding the Confessions as one of several interpretations, or by regarding the Confessions as infallible. Either way it is stripped of the original intention of being a covenantal document for the churches to bind them to the historical Church. 

I'm not so sure that Anne has conveyed the Presbyterian system all that well in her first post. I was addressing her concern, which I think is a proper concern. I think that the best way to convey what the Confessions mean is to relate it to the Apostles' Creed article about the "one holy and catholic church", that we are tied to the same confession which all the Church has made from the time of the Apostles until the present, that we are unified in our submission to the Word of God and the witness of the Spirit. It also recognizes the special place that Christ gave the Church when He granted His offices of authority to the duly ordained leaders of the Church. It's like a contract, a covenant, a testimony, of each generation's submission to the same teachings which holds us to account in the present. We are one with the Church of all ages, bound by a written covenant. It is the covenant we have made with each other to remain faithful to the Word, going as far back as these covenants go.


----------



## Gryphonette (Jan 27, 2007)

> I'm not so sure that Anne has conveyed the Presbyterian system all that well in her first post. I was addressing her concern, which I think is a proper concern.



I apologize if I've made a muddle of Presbyterianism. It's why I do keep reminding everyone I am not now, nor have I ever been, Presbyterian.

Though I've lots of Presbyterian friends. ;^)



> It's like a contract, a covenant, a testimony, of each generation's submission to the same teachings which holds us to account in the present. We are one with the Church of all ages, bound by a written covenant. It is the covenant we have made with each other to remain faithful to the Word, going as far back as these covenants go.



Oh, I _do_ like the way you put this!






And John, something I've quite likely not made clear - my fault, not a doubt about it - is that my remarks have been primarily geared toward those teaching from the pulpit in a denomination, not what they believe as private individuals. I'm also a member of the Warfield list and someone on there, If I recall correctly, is an elder in the PCA who privately holds to paedocommunion but keeps it, well, _private_. Quite properly he doesn't promote paedocommunion at his church because the PCA doesn't approve of paedocommunion.

He's _publicly _submitting to his denomination in an area in which he _privately_ disagrees, and I say good for him. May his tribe increase.


----------



## JohnV (Jan 27, 2007)

I wasn't so concerned about the way you worded it, Anne. I think I understood your concern. That is my concern as well. I've been riding that concern for quite a while. The pulpit is not a soapbox, and the place in front of Christ's congregation is not a forum to propagate personal convictions that go beyond the covenanted limits. 

I can respect that elder for his integrity in his office. I can disagree with him personally, and yet respect him as an elder. If he saw his ordination as a licence to establish his own views, then I would see that as an undermining of the office. But he is one who obviously knows the difference. May there be more like him, only fewer of them who are convinced of paedo-communion.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 27, 2007)

Gryphonette said:


> I am not now, nor have I ever been, Presbyterian.



It's never too late, Anne, never too late...

When you get to Heaven, you'll notice that the Presbyterians are the tall, good-looking individuals...


----------



## JohnV (Jan 27, 2007)

And the Dutch Reformed are the blond ones with the funny hats.


----------



## Machaira (Jan 28, 2007)

bookslover said:


> It's never too late, Anne, never too late...
> 
> When you get to Heaven, you'll notice that the Presbyterians are the tall, good-looking individuals...



Tall? Uh oh . . . 

Mat 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

I am good-looking by the way . . . that's right, my wife says so.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 28, 2007)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> So the Westminster Standards are not, in and of themselves, inspired or given from heaven, but they are an external witness to the truth of the Gospel and its theological and practical appendages.



As understood by X, Y and Z in the year 1646.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 28, 2007)

JohnV said:


> And the Dutch Reformed are the blond ones with the funny hats.



...and the funny shoes.


----------

