# Presbyterian's view of confession VS. "Reformed" view of confession



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 12, 2010)

First, I had to make this distinction because I do not attend a church that holds to the westminster standards( i.e. pca, opc, etc.) but rather one who holds to the three forms of unity. These distinctions were explained to me, so therefore I'm using them (with respect to the topic at hand).

It is my understanding (if this is incorrect, please inform me) that those who hold to the westminster standards (mainly speaking about PCA or OPC), hold to their standards "in so far as" they are biblical; and those who hold to the three forms of unity(which this is my view) hold to them "because" they are biblical.

What says you?

(This could also shed light into the understanding of certain ministers becoming FV'ists, but FV is not my concern for this specific topic.)


----------



## Mushroom (Apr 12, 2010)

See this thread.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2010)

This is an incorrect distribution. There are differences of opinion both amongst those who hold the Westminster Standards and amongst those who hold the Three Forms of Unity.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 12, 2010)

I hold to the West. Standards because they are Biblical. I might say that the 3 Forms of Unity are no more biblical than the Westminster Standards.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 12, 2010)

> Presbyterian Church in America
> Book of Church Order
> 
> III. THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED
> ...



Officers (deacons and elders) in the PCA vow that they comprehensively understand and agree with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards as faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture, unless granted a peer reviewed exception.

Members vow to learn the church's doctrine peaceably, and to submit to its government (e.g. by deacons and elders) and discipline, understanding it is what the church confesses as truth.

The standards are subject to and subordinate to the Scriptures because they are not Scripture, but are received as faithful summaries of the doctrine contained therein.

As far as I'm aware, the doctrine summarized in the Three Forms of Unity is essentially the same as the Westminster Standards- and you will also see the Heidelberg Catechism, for example, cited and taught.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Apr 13, 2010)

Joshua said:


> There are those of us RPs that own the Westminster Standards as the Confession of our Faith. I'm one.


 
Confession of "our" faith?


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 16, 2010)

I've generally heard it stated that the WCF is the best _summary or systematic presentation_ of what the Bible teaches.

I'd be extremely concerned if an officer stated that he held to the standards "in so far as they are biblical" -- Presbyterianism is one man among many. What the denomination already believes the Bible teaches is clear to anyone before he seeks (or is sought for) office. An individual may affirm, or not affirm (and therefore go to another denomination) the standards. If someone decides he is developing a position that may be contrary to the standards, he must make that known among his peers and seek their counsel.

I'll add that I think the last statement protects the WCF from being a dead document that is blindly followed. The elders I've had the privilege to know well have delighted in examining and re-examining their beliefs in light of scriptures. If someone were to raise a legitimate, Biblical argument against something in the standards, I believe it would be carefully considered. Most of what I have heard about has involved the use of language -- once the individual understands how a word or phrase is being used, they affirm the original statement.


----------



## raekwon (Apr 16, 2010)

I'm an elder in the PCA, and if pressed to choose one or the other, I'd say that I subscribe to the Westminster Standards _in so far_ as they are Biblical. (But really, why the distinction? I also subscribe to them because I believe that they _are_ Biblical.)

I would say "in so far" for this reason -- the Standards were not born of divine inspiration. They are subject and subordinate to scripture, just like the BCO says. If we are to be a "Church Reformed and Ever Reforming", then we have to be aware of and open to the possibility that our subordinate Standards could be tweaked every now and again to better reflect Biblical truth.

Anyway... I think that "in so far as vs. because" is something of a false dichotomy.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 16, 2010)

Rae, I think I can understand why someone would not want to risk being joined to something outside of scripture; but would you not agree that it is not your_ individual _decision as to whether a particular statement in the standards is consistent with the scriptures? Should you not submit yourself to others on your session and ask, "is this point in the WCF what the Bible really teaches?" so you can be instructed or withdraw yourself from being an officer if the view is not reconcilable?


----------



## Herald (Apr 16, 2010)

I subscribe to the 1689 LBC, but I also profit from the value of the WCF. Even though I posses some different doctrinal convictions than my WCF brethren, I recognize that the framers of the LBCF understood the merit of the WCF. instead of re-making the wheel, they adopted those areas In which they agreed. This RB has a high degree of respect for the WCF.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 16, 2010)

While this may not directly answer you original post, I think the posts indicate why Presbyterianism has historically allowed scruples (exceptions) to be considered.

It means that every statement and/or proposition is taken to be a faithful summary of the doctrine of scripture unless a scruple is requested, and evaluated, and granted.

A key principle of reformed theology generally is a confession of truth, commonly held, and not an independent development of individual theology.

Also, reformed theology recognizes God can speak through church authority- not on a level with Scripture, but in terms of finding, confessing, and holding accountable its confession of its doctrine.


----------

