# Word Magic



## BGF (Jun 28, 2015)

This article by G.I. Williamson is, in my opinion, spot on.



> By a majority of five to four the Supreme Court has discovered a new principle in the 14th Amendment, namely, the right to marry someone of your own sex.
> 
> In a scathing dissent Justice Scalia wrote this: “When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, every State limited marriage to one man and one woman, and no one doubted the constitutionality of doing so. They (the majority) have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since.”
> 
> ...



This is something that has frustrated me for some time. If the plain and intended meaning of the language in our confession and catechisms can be so easily manipulated, then what's the point of having these as standards? If you cannot agree with what is said, don't change the meaning. State your difference and let it be what it is.


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 28, 2015)

When people are not looking to The Standard, who is God, then there is no way to maintain the meaning of anything. Without man being regenerated and thus given the faith to repent and turn to God to worship, know, and understand His ways with an adoring heart of love, then the anchor is not moored and the ship is adrift tossed to and fro.

Thanks for sharing the article.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 28, 2015)

Yes; spot on. The PCA is weak on creation also and on at least one creation ordinance already.


----------



## Leslie (Jun 29, 2015)

I believe in 6 day creation and in traditional marriage. However I differ with the premise stated above. The whole point of constitutional law as well as theological debate is to critique the consistency vs inconsistency of the documents. When the founders of this country stated that all men are created equal, they did not envision that to include African-Americans. It took a few generations for the hypocrisy of the statement to be clarified and for injustice to be rectified. Likewise, if one truly believes in sola scriptura, what is the problem with going back to examine the exact wording of the creation account? If one categorically states that the original intention of the confessions cannot be questioned on the basis of scripture, then one is de facto abandoning sola scriptura.


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2015)

We are Protestants. The confession is not a dress-window to be changed by council or consensus. It is the floor-plan of the building. Change the confession and you change the church; and you cause a great many problems to the people who live and work inside it.

First you have office-bearers. It is not just that they have made a commitment to the church in terms of the Confession; the church has made a commitment to them.

Then you have the members. Who knows what sacrifices they have made in order to make their home in this confessing church! Are these to be disregarded for the sake of a change?

Then you have the patrimony of the church that must be administered in good faith. As the gifts were entrusted under the terms of the church's confession they must be used accordingly. A change in the confession effectively alters the church's relationship to this patrimony.

And we have not yet raised the relationship of the church to the world and the nature of its witness.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 29, 2015)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Yes; spot on. The PCA is weak on creation also and on at least one creation ordinance already.



Curious if any in the NAPARC that only allow teaching 6 consecative days and a "young" earth?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 29, 2015)

Maybe; dunno for sure. http://www.naparc.org/member-churches/


----------



## BGF (Jun 29, 2015)

earl40 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> > Yes; spot on. The PCA is weak on creation also and on at least one creation ordinance already.
> ...



Westminster Presbytery (PCA) seems to require this.
http://theaquilareport.com/westminster-presbytery-pca-are-the-rumors-true/


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 29, 2015)

PCA's RPR (review of Presbytery minutes) has questioned this as a tertiary additional standard; WP needs to respond by next year and see where it goes. Someone who was on RPR might give better sense of what is going on here or maybe Fred can.


----------



## timfost (Jun 29, 2015)

Excellent comparison! It seems like churches should become more consistent with their own interpretive principles before they critique that of society. God is not a progressive!


----------



## Leslie (Jun 29, 2015)

MW said:


> We are Protestants. The confession is not a dress-window to be changed by council or consensus. It is the floor-plan of the building. Change the confession and you change the church; and you cause a great many problems to the people who live and work inside it.
> 
> First you have office-bearers. It is not just that they have made a commitment to the church in terms of the Confession; the church has made a commitment to them.
> 
> ...



I thought it was the scriptures, not tradition/confessions that were the bedrock of our faith. Am I wrong? Granted that the confessions should not be changed lightly, but if they are not infallible (and they claim not to be), then they are not above reexamination. Right?


----------



## py3ak (Jun 29, 2015)

Leslie said:


> I believe in 6 day creation and in traditional marriage. However I differ with the premise stated above. The whole point of constitutional law as well as theological debate is to critique the consistency vs inconsistency of the documents. When the founders of this country stated that all men are created equal, they did not envision that to include African-Americans. It took a few generations for the hypocrisy of the statement to be clarified and for injustice to be rectified. Likewise, if one truly believes in sola scriptura, what is the problem with going back to examine the exact wording of the creation account? If one categorically states that the original intention of the confessions cannot be questioned on the basis of scripture, then one is de facto abandoning sola scriptura.



You're not actually disagreeing with G.I. Williamson here. He points out that there is a mechanism for amending the Confession; his argument is that it's more honest to alter the document than to claim that it somehow agrees with this new position.


----------



## chuckd (Jun 29, 2015)

Leslie said:


> I believe in 6 day creation and in traditional marriage. However I differ with the premise stated above. The whole point of constitutional law as well as theological debate is to critique the consistency vs inconsistency of the documents. When the founders of this country stated that all men are created equal, they did not envision that to include African-Americans. It took a few generations for the hypocrisy of the statement to be clarified and for injustice to be rectified. Likewise, if one truly believes in sola scriptura, what is the problem with going back to examine the exact wording of the creation account? If one categorically states that the original intention of the confessions cannot be questioned on the basis of scripture, then one is de facto abandoning sola scriptura.



How did the U.S. address "all men are created equal" with respect to black people? Word magic or 14th constitutional amendment? That didn't even give them the right to vote. How did we address that? Supreme court decision interpreting the 14th? No, 15th amendment. Does the 14th amendment grant women the right to vote since they are being denied "the equal protection of the laws"? Answer: no. Therefore we have the 19th amendment. See a pattern? (except last Friday of course)


----------



## MW (Jun 29, 2015)

Leslie said:


> I thought it was the scriptures, not tradition/confessions that were the bedrock of our faith. Am I wrong?



Not wrong, but perhaps not seeing that the doctrine of Scripture is part of the confession. So as soon as we say Scripture is the bedrock of faith, we have made a confession that we regard as infallible and unchangeable. When the church says Scripture teaches X, doctrine X is treated as infallible and unchangeable because it is the doctrine of Scripture. One does not seek to change the doctrine of Scripture.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 29, 2015)

The RCUS requires 6-day.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 30, 2015)

One problem with original intent as an interpretive principle is whose intent do you go by? Individual members of the assembly? The committee assigned to that portion? The assembly as a whole? The adopting body? Seems to me the adopting body is the most relevant, but the problem of original intent has lead many to look for alternatives such as textualism or original public meaning. (These different approaches often lead to different results yet they confusingly all go by the name originalism.)

Then you have the issue that the Confession is a subordinate standard to the Scriptures. What should happen if there is an apparent conflict between the two standards? Some would have us immediately amend the subordinate standards, but why not take the approach of a Bork (who conservatives seemed to love) or a Roberts (who conservatives now hate? for doing what Bork would have done?) and give the Confession a saving construction? That is, why shouldn't the Confession be interpreted in light of the Scriptures?


----------



## Nicholas Perella (Jun 30, 2015)

SRoper said:


> That is, why shouldn't the Confession be interpreted in light of the Scriptures?



For one, they are already interpreted in light of the Scriptures.


1.) Are you saying in your hypothetical that some part of the Confession was not already being interpreted in light of the Scriptures? Are you saying there was a 'then' scriptural interpretation and there is a 'now' scriptural interpretation? If so, what was the 'then' scriptural interpretation? And who's 'then' scriptural interpretation are you using or going by? Or who's 'now' scriptural interpretation are you using or going by?

2.) Can you know the original intent of the scriptures? Or does that change also?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jun 30, 2015)

SRoper said:


> One problem with original intent as an interpretive principle is whose intent do you go by?



In many orthodox Presbyterian churches it is common for office bearers to vow to uphold the Westminster Confession as it was received by the Church of Scotland in 1647. Thus, that should constitute an adequate definition of original intent.

In other situations, however, when people vow to uphold the Westminster Confession as it was received by [insert the name of an ecclesiastical body], then their vows may not necessarily oblige them to receive the Westminster Confession as it was received by the Church of Scotland in 1647. 

As a non-American, I think talk of "original intent" can be confusing owing to the muddled thinking of political conservatives. For instance, when the current President of the USA swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, he did not swear to uphold it as it was originally written in 1787. Instead, he swore to uphold it as it currently stands in light of the amendments that have been subsequently added to the document. The same principle may hold true for office bearers in the American Presbyterian churches who vow to uphold an amended version of the Westminster Confession.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 30, 2015)

Nicholas,

1. I'm specifically referring to the notion that "in the space of six days" means something more than what Scripture already teaches in Genesis and the Ten Commandments. If the Standards are an accurate summary of the teaching of Scripture, they can't be interpreted to mean something more than what Scripture teaches. It is sort of the judgment of charity applied to the Standards. If the author of the article wants to say that anyone who doesn't hold to a specific view of Creation is teaching contrary to the Scriptures, let's have that discussion instead.

2. Behind the many human authors of Scripture there is one Author. Seeking original intent seems a lot less futile in any case where there is one author, even more so when that Author "authored" the interpreter and sent his Interpreter to help. The original intent can't change, but our understanding of it can.

Daniel,

You make many excellent points. I did not know that there are Presbyterian churches that specify these things. You are right about our muddled thinking. We can't even decide if judicial restraint means the judge should strictly enforce the Constitution or should defer to the majority through their elected representatives. I think it just depends on which outcome we like best in any given case.


----------



## Verkehrsteilnehmer (Jul 1, 2015)

"Traditional Marriage"? I think you mean marriage. This decision is only a couple days old and are we now going to start using their words? It is like "traditional worship" and "contemporary worship" nonsense. What does the Bible call it? And what is an "African-American" outside the USA? We will never be able to think clearly if we use the PC vocabulary. 
Dave
PHX
OPC


----------



## timfost (Jul 2, 2015)

Verkehrsteilnehmer said:


> "Traditional Marriage"? I think you mean marriage. This decision is only a couple days old and are we now going to start using their words? It is like "traditional worship" and "contemporary worship" nonsense. What does the Bible call it? And what is an "African-American" outside the USA? We will never be able to think clearly if we use the PC vocabulary.
> Dave
> PHX
> OPC



_Total_ depravity, _unconditional_ election, etc. Adjectives are helpful, but I share your concern about "traditional." Perhaps we should use the adjective _biblical_ marriage to qualify what the bible defines as marriage.


----------

