# WCF 1647 is the best orthodox Confession ever produced



## dudley (Apr 4, 2010)

I believe The Westminster Standards (1647) ,WCF 1647 is the best orthodox Confession ever produced.
I have a question for my Presbyterian PB brothers, do you agree?


----------



## Tim (Apr 5, 2010)

To me, the appeal and value becomes even greater when considering the 'whole package':

Confession of Faith
Larger Catechism
Shorter Catechism
To The Christian Reader, Especially Heads of Families
Mr. Thomas Manton's Epistle to the Reader
The Sum of Saving Knowledge
The Confession of Faith of the Kirk of Scotland: Or, The National Covenant
The Solemn League and Covenant
The Directory for the Publick Worship of God
The Directory for Family Worship 
The Form of Presbyterial Church Government

The other documents provide additional instruction on things that the Confession itself does not. For example, consider the nature of the Catechisms, with their treatment of the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments. 

The Westminster documents are broad as well as deep.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 5, 2010)

The Westminster Standards, while not perfect, are the most biblical, concise, profound theology ever summarized.

My understanding is the Three Forms of Unity is the same theology.

The London Baptist Confession, and all the historic confessions are very similar in theology, and are very, very good.

I am thankful our American forefathers made the changes they did.


----------



## jbucklin (Apr 5, 2010)

One of the most life-changing things I've experienced was when I went through Robert Shaw's "The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith", looking up, meditating on, and praying over the Scripture proofs. It took a while, but was so worth the time and effort in the end. It was then that I really began to understand what it means to be reformed.

I like how R. Scott Clark in his book, "Recovering the Reformed Confession", refers to the "Six Forms of Unity" (Three Forms of Unity + WCF, WLC, WSC) as "the Confession". According to Clark (and many others), subscription to the Confession is what makes a person reformed. Many will say they are reformed, but not confessional. That seems to me, in light of what Clark teaches, to be an oxymoron. Most people who earnestly study the Confession would agree with this view.

I highly recommend Clark's book, along with "Reformed Confessions Harmonized", edited by Joel Beeke and Sinclair Ferguson.


----------



## dudley (Apr 8, 2010)

I agree with my PB brothers Tim and Scott1 and as a Reformed Protestant and a Presbyterian I believe a confession of our loyalty to the Bible is not enough. The most radical denials of biblical truth frequently coexist with a professed regard for the authority and testimony of the Bible. When men use the very words of the Bible to promote heresy, when the Word of truth is perverted to serve error, nothing less than a confession of Faith will serve publicly to draw the lines between truth and error... I also read "The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith", and I agree with my PB brother jbucklin that it was then that I really began to understand what it means to be Reformed and also Protestant


----------



## dudley (Apr 8, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> The Westminster Standards, while not perfect, are the most biblical, concise, profound theology ever summarized.
> 
> My understanding is the Three Forms of Unity is the same theology.
> 
> ...



Scott I think you may like to read the following article in Modern Reformation :A Reformed Dream by
W. Robert Godfrey. I thought it was very good and addressed some points you made in your post.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 9, 2010)

> I believe The Westminster Standards (1647) ,WCF 1647 is the best orthodox Confession ever produced.



While the vast majority of the WCF from 1647 is, I believe, the best representation of what scripture teaches, I have trouble with the original giving power to the state to censure believers over matters of faith. Therefore, at least for the US churches, I believe the revisions made in the Synod of Philadelphia in 1787 are the best. I repudiate the the changes that were made in 1903.


----------



## chbrooking (Apr 9, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> > I believe The Westminster Standards (1647) ,WCF 1647 is the best orthodox Confession ever produced.
> 
> 
> 
> While the vast majority of the WCF from 1647 is, I believe, the best representation of what scripture teaches, I have trouble with the original giving power to the state to censure believers over matters of faith. Therefore, at least for the US churches, I believe the revisions made in the Synod of Philadelphia in 1787 are the best. I repudiate the the changes that were made in 1903.


 
Ditto


----------



## MW (Apr 9, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> While the vast majority of the WCF from 1647 is, I believe, the best representation of what scripture teaches, I have trouble with the original giving power to the state to censure believers over matters of faith.


 
If "censure" is taken in its proper meaning, the original WCF states precisely the opposite of what you have claimed, 20:4; 30:1, 2.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 11, 2010)

> they may be lawfully called to account, and proceeded against by the censures of the Church, and by the power of the Civil Magistrate.


 WCF 20:4 

I stand corrected on the use of the word censure, however I do believe the striking of "and by the power of the civil magistrate." was entirely appropriate for the U.S. church.

Same with striking: "Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority." from 22:3

The rewriting of 23:3 "The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God."

And striking and reordering 31:2 "As magistrates may lawfully call a synod of ministers, and other fit persons, to consult and advise with, about matters of religion; so, if magistrates be open enemies to the Church, the ministers of Christ of themselves, by virtue of their office, or they, with other fit persons, upon delegation from their Churches, may meet together in such assemblies."

This is blending the authority of the state with the church: do we really want President Obama to be calling meetings of presbytery? Do we want the state defining Christian liberty?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Apr 11, 2010)

The most clear part that is in no way in accord with the Bible is 23.3


> ... yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.


The section here states that the civil magistrate is the final authority within the church to provide that whatever is transacted at synods is in accord with the mind of God. This passage puts the civil magistrate in authority over the church in matters of blasphemies, heresies, keeping the truth of God pure (as they see it ... which we know is not what we would see). It gives them the power to call the synod (general assembly in our church) and assure that what is transacted is in accord with the mind of God (not even saying in accord with scripture). While those today might practice historical revisionism of what is meant by this, I certainly do not think that Bill Clinton ought to have been able to call a synod and insist it enact doctrinal standards to allow the head of state to practice what for anyone else would be sexual sin, and use the power of the sword to enforce it.

To me it patently obvious that the original confession was a product of its time, and while it made great progress toward the Biblical view of the separation of the offices of prophet, priest and king in this world (save the Lord Jesus, alone) it could not totally escape the culture in which it was written. King Uzziah took incense into the temple, and was immediately stricken for his insolence. That instance is a clear warning within the scripture that the power of the civil magistrate does not go beyond the civil authority and the sphere of influence of the sword of this world ends at the sword of the Spirit.


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 11, 2010)

> *Brian Withnell*
> To me it patently obvious that the original confession was a product of its time,



Yes,
And reflected the circumstances of the Assembly- charged really by the King, who was in that context was considered head of the "state" church.

The colonies, once independent as states, were set upon an entirely different set of circumstances.


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> I stand corrected on the use of the word censure, however I do believe the striking of "and by the power of the civil magistrate." was entirely appropriate for the U.S. church.


 
It is inappropriate for a Church to undermine the State's just obligations under God to punish the evil doer. I think it is a grave mistake to view WCF 20:4 as giving power to the State to punish beliefs. It is not beliefs per se, but beliefs expressed in unlawful actions which the civil magistrate has power to punish. When a revision removes that clause acknowledging the civil magistrate's just power it effectively creates a claim for Christian liberty which the Bible never teaches.


----------



## MW (Apr 11, 2010)

Brian Withnell said:


> To me it patently obvious that the original confession was a product of its time, and while it made great progress toward the Biblical view of the separation of the offices of prophet, priest and king in this world (save the Lord Jesus, alone) it could not totally escape the culture in which it was written. King Uzziah took incense into the temple, and was immediately stricken for his insolence. That instance is a clear warning within the scripture that the power of the civil magistrate does not go beyond the civil authority and the sphere of influence of the sword of this world ends at the sword of the Spirit.


 
It is simply a truism that a document is the product of its time. So was the revision. This adds nothing to the discussion about correctness.

If Uzziah is an example of intrusion, certainly Asa and Jehoshaphat must be viewed as examples of just civil authority concerning matters of religion. One is not at liberty to pick and choose examples.


----------



## au5t1n (Apr 11, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> If Uzziah is an example of intrusion, certainly Asa and Jehoshaphat must be viewed as examples of just civil authority concerning matters of religion. One is not at liberty to pick and choose examples.


 
Or if I may contribute an extra-Israel example, the king of Ninevah (Jon. 3:6-10).


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 11, 2010)

No confession is perfect though I do think in terms of best orthodox confession the Apostle's creed wins hands down!  

In all seriousness, I am grateful for the slight revisions on the nature and role of government made by Reformed Churches in the USA and other countries (or at least permitted exceptions to that part). On the other hand, The confession is essentially now written in such a way that a congregationalist can hold to it in good conscience lol! I do not believe the lesser documents of the Westminster assembly (especially The Sum of Saving Knowledge which borderlines catholicism or at best High Lutheranism/anglicanism when it speaks of the sacraments and their role in justification) are as good as the Confession, 2 catechisms and the directory (which is amazing). The other documents I am less familiar with in terms of historical context so I will not comment on. The standards are sufficient for governing but I would throw a pastor out of a pulpit if he preached them as a text for a sermon! One is ordanied to the ministry of Word and Sacrament not confession. Confession stands as a governing tool for orthodoxy.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 11, 2010)

Bypassing your analysis, which I'm sure someone will want to comment on, I will merely note that the Sum of Saving Knowledge is not a constitutional document; it is historical and customarily attached to full editions of the Scottish Standards. Never formally adopted or even considered by a church. Printers attached it to the standards early on (about 1650 about when it was created).
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/sum-saving-knowledge-authors-history-24551/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f87/dickson-durham-oppose-teaching-god-desires-salvation-all-men-24539/


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 11, 2010)

What can I say? I'm a marrowman.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> What can I say? I'm a marrowman.


 
The "Marrowmen" owned the original Westminster Confession as the confession of their faith and appealed to the Sum of Saving Knowledge in support of their doctrines. I suggest that you need to find a different term whereby to denominate your peculiar breed of theology.


----------



## dudley (Apr 12, 2010)

I wish to thank all My Presbyterian PB brothers on the PB for your responses to this thread I started on April 5th. I initially asked the question: I believe The Westminster Standards (1647) ,WCF 1647 is the best orthodox Confession ever produced.
I have a question for my Presbyterian PB brothers, do you agree? 
Your responses and discussion have helped me and I am sure others on the PB who have been able to discourse there thoughts. I thank you for your thoughts. I thank Chris for his suggestion :"Sum of Saving Knowledge; Authors and History". I have now read that. I am relatively still new to being a Protestant and I am still learning about the Reformed faith and theology and what it means to be Presbyterian. You have all beeen helpful by your responses. I am learning more each day what it means to be a Reformed Protestant and I thank you all for your input and responses.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Apr 12, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> No confession is perfect though I do think in terms of best orthodox confession the Apostle's creed wins hands down!
> 
> In all seriousness, I am grateful for the slight revisions on the nature and role of government made by Reformed Churches in the USA and other countries (or at least permitted exceptions to that part). On the other hand, The confession is essentially now written in such a way that a congregationalist can hold to it in good conscience lol! I do not believe the lesser documents of the Westminster assembly (especially The Sum of Saving Knowledge which borderlines catholicism or at best High Lutheranism/anglicanism when it speaks of the sacraments and their role in justification) are as good as the Confession, 2 catechisms and the directory (which is amazing). The other documents I am less familiar with in terms of historical context so I will not comment on. The standards are sufficient for governing but I would throw a pastor out of a pulpit if he preached them as a text for a sermon! One is ordanied to the ministry of Word and Sacrament not confession. Confession stands as a governing tool for orthodoxy.


 
Oh, very interesting! I will have to read this "Sum of Saving Knowledge".


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 12, 2010)

Very interesting. I never knew they appointed to the Sum of Saving knowlege. Can you show show me some documentation of that? I would be very interested.

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------




DeborahtheJudge said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > No confession is perfect though I do think in terms of best orthodox confession the Apostle's creed wins hands down!
> ...


 
In case you are wondering Joy, our slight disagreement is Head III & IV iin the Sum. Let me quote from it (The Free Presbyterian Publications edition):_In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whosoever so confess their sin, accept of Christ offered, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have both them and their children received into the honour and privleges of hte covenant of grace. ... In particulat, 1 He doth converte or regenerate them, by giving spiritual life to them in opening their understandings, renewing their wills, affections , and faculties, for giving spiritual obedience to his commands. 2. He gives them saving faith... 3. He gives them repentance..._All this in reference specifically to the 2 sacraments of the Church (note: these can be found on pages 324-325 of the previously mentioned edition). While there is no doubt that the sacraments are special means of grace it is wrong to consider them means of special grace. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God not by eating bead and getting wet, though both signify the truth of the Gospel, the NT's clear emphesis is on preaching as the means by which sinners get saved. And that the WORD must accompany sacrament always, but the word can stand alone biblically and the sacraments cannot. The rest of the document I have no problem with and I love. But this view that God converts people through the word in the sacraments (which is what I think most charitably way of saying what is taught here) is unbiblical. Not taught in the confessions and was a minority view among the Westminster Divines and the Puritans. Though it can be harmonized with the confession sadly, it goes against the spirit of it. What surpises me is that you said the marrowmen pointed to this document. I truely doubt they would have pointed to this part in it given the controversy was about (at least one element) whether or not a sinner needs to prepare himself to come to Christ.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 12, 2010)

> I am learning more each day what it means to be a Reformed Protestant


 May I ask from what background you came?


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> Very interesting. I never knew they appointed to the Sum of Saving knowlege. Can you show show me some documentation of that? I would be very interested.


 
Thomas Boston's Notes on the Marrow would be an appropriate place to begin.


----------



## MW (Apr 12, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> All this in reference specifically to the 2 sacraments of the Church


 
This is a false representation. The third head has clearly distinguished the nature of the sacraments from the nature of the Word as means of grace. The Word offers grace while the sacraments confirm it. What you claim is specifically related to the sacraments is in fact the fourth head of teaching, where the effecting of salvation is attributed to all the ordinances in general, not to the sacraments in particular. It is clear that the distinction of head three is to be carried into the teaching of head four, so that mention of the ordinances being effectual must be qualified by the distinction that the word offers grace and the sacraments confirm it.


----------



## dudley (Apr 13, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> > I am learning more each day what it means to be a Reformed Protestant
> 
> 
> May I ask from what background you came?



I was a Roman catholic , I became an Episcapalian in 2006 and thus also a Protestant , I became a Presbyterian and a Reformed Protestant in 2007. See my biography and many of my posts.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Apr 14, 2010)

Rev. Winzer,

I assure you I _can_ pick my examples ... in fact I did. The differences between what Uzziah did and that of Asa/Jehoshaphat seem so great as to be without much in common.

I see nothing that gives the civil authority power over the doctrine of the church in scripture, which is exactly what was reflected in the changes adopted by the OPC. The civil authority is limited to punishing wrong doing, not power to force synods to enact doctrine.


----------



## MW (Apr 14, 2010)

Brian Withnell said:


> I assure you I _can_ pick my examples ... in fact I did. The differences between what Uzziah did and that of Asa/Jehoshaphat seem so great as to be without much in common.



It depends what you mean by "in common." Uzziah is a negative example; Asa and Jehoshaphat are positive examples. A negative example is to be shunned and a positive example to be followed. If Uzziah teaches us that the magistrate has no authority IN matters of religion, Asa and Jehoshaphat teach us that the magistrate has authority CONCERNING matters of religion. We must accept all the Bible teaches on the subject, not pick and choose.



Brian Withnell said:


> I see nothing that gives the civil authority power over the doctrine of the church in scripture, which is exactly what was reflected in the changes adopted by the OPC. The civil authority is limited to punishing wrong doing, not power to force synods to enact doctrine.


 
The original WCF refuses civil authority power over the doctrine of the church. One would do well to understand what the original teaches before speaking against it.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Apr 14, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> The Westminster Standards, while not perfect, are the most biblical, concise, profound theology ever summarized.
> 
> My understanding is the Three Forms of Unity is the same theology.
> 
> ...


 
Do you really think their changes fit with the system of doctrine of the Confession and Catechisms? I sure don't. To me, the American revisions introduced internal contradictions where the original had none. I tend to think it was more of a reactionary revision in light of the new U. S. Constitution and not nearly as well thought out theologically as the original section which they replaced.

---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ----------




jogri17 said:


> Very interesting. I never knew they appointed to the Sum of Saving knowlege. Can you show show me some documentation of that? I would be very interested.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------
> 
> ...


 
To these italicized portions of the Sum of Saving knowledge I give my hearty Amen! The "grace" in reference in the "means of grace" is indeed special grace, that grace which saves. Otherwise we wouldn't need to bother with hearing preaching, the sacraments, church discipline, etc.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Apr 15, 2010)

> It depends what you mean by "in common." Uzziah is a negative example; Asa and Jehoshaphat are positive examples. A negative example is to be shunned and a positive example to be followed. If Uzziah teaches us that the magistrate has no authority IN matters of religion, Asa and Jehoshaphat teach us that the magistrate has authority CONCERNING matters of religion. We must accept all the Bible teaches on the subject, not pick and choose.


I disagree with the statement conclusion ... Asa and Jehoshaphat show no ministerial meddling as Uzziah. They did not attempt to go into the sphere of the church. There is no action where they did the equivalent. They did follow what the church had already decreed (they destroyed the idols that were already condemned by the church) but they did not convene synods or dictate the church must rule in a certain way.



> The original WCF refuses civil authority power over the doctrine of the church. One would do well to understand what the original teaches before speaking against it.


I think this is were I'm going to agree with those that have already stated that the confession is self-contradictory on the subject. It attempts to have it both ways, in saying the civil magistrate is to call synods and assure proper outcome of them, and not to assume the power of the keys of the kingdom. It is a work of men, and it was rightly corrected in the patent error of gross self-contradiction. The original American version fixed these obvious logical flaws. This is not just my evaluation of the matter, but it was the evaluation of the matter by others, and at least partial reason for the change in the original during the later 18th century by many others that saw the error.

Also, might I suggest you drop the condescending tone; it does not help your argument. Ad hominem (even thinly veiled) is still a logic error, and does nothing to support iron sharpening iron.


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 15, 2010)

> I was a Roman catholic , I became an Episcapalian in 2006 and thus also a Protestant , I became a Presbyterian and a Reformed Protestant in 2007. See my biography and many of my posts


 I appreciate seeing folks refining their understanding to better match what the scriptures teach. Once you get used to Presbyterian alphabet soup (OPC, RPCNA, etc.) and our love of order in procedure we're a pretty lovable bunch


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Apr 15, 2010)

Brian Withnell said:


> > It depends what you mean by "in common." Uzziah is a negative example; Asa and Jehoshaphat are positive examples. A negative example is to be shunned and a positive example to be followed. If Uzziah teaches us that the magistrate has no authority IN matters of religion, Asa and Jehoshaphat teach us that the magistrate has authority CONCERNING matters of religion. We must accept all the Bible teaches on the subject, not pick and choose.
> 
> 
> I disagree with the statement conclusion ... Asa and Jehoshaphat show no ministerial meddling as Uzziah. They did not attempt to go into the sphere of the church. There is no action where they did the equivalent. They did follow what the church had already decreed (they destroyed the idols that were already condemned by the church) but they did not convene synods or dictate the church must rule in a certain way.



Asa and Jehoshaphat did not regard or treat all religions the same. The American WCF XXIII:iii is inconsistent in calling civil magistrates “nursing fathers” but pretending they are to have no concern for the spiritual food of their children, promoting religious polytheistic pluralism. Such should be guilty of neglect. The civil magistrate is obligated to recognize biblical faith and Christ’s church, endorse and praise what is good. Failure to do so is to be in liable to wrath of Christ, against which civil magistrates are cautioned in Ps. 2:10-12.



> > The original WCF refuses civil authority power over the doctrine of the church. One would do well to understand what the original teaches before speaking against it.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is were I'm going to agree with those that have already stated that the confession is self-contradictory on the subject. It attempts to have it both ways, in saying the civil magistrate is to call synods and assure proper outcome of them, and not to assume the power of the keys of the kingdom. It is a work of men, and it was rightly corrected in the patent error of gross self-contradiction. The original American version fixed these obvious logical flaws. This is not just my evaluation of the matter, but it was the evaluation of the matter by others, and at least partial reason for the change in the original during the later 18th century by many others that saw the error.c



Any possible Erastian misinterpretations of the Confession was already guarded against by the qualifications of XXXI:ii in the “Act approving the CONFESSION of FAITH” enacted by the Church of Scotland on the 27th of August 1647. Here, they made clear that the calling of assemblies and synods by civil magistrates applied primarily to “kirks not settled.” 

How can one object to the civil magistrate calling an assembly to resolve religious issues when the Westminster Assembly was in fact such a gathering convened by the English Parliament, with later additions from Scotland. Acceptance of the Confession implies endorsement of the fruit of that civil act. Likewise, the council which produced the Nicene Creed was also called by the civil magistrate.

The principles of national covenanting, establishment and that the civil magistrate has an obligation to censure outward violations of the first table of the Law is not Erastianism; a distinction not often understood by Americans, who tend toward being products of their culture, history, and a defective constitutional arrangement. 

How could we object if there was a revival in our land and the president were to call a group of godly men together and ask them for direction from the word of God. We’d have constitutional issues in implementing or adopting statements produced; but this points to the flaws of the American Constitution, which robs God of authority in the name of “We the people...,” and not the original Westminster Standards.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 15, 2010)

Brian Withnell said:


> It is a work of men, and it was rightly corrected in the patent error of gross self-contradiction. The original American version fixed these obvious logical flaws.
> 
> Also, might I suggest you drop the condescending tone; it does not help your argument. Ad hominem (even thinly veiled) is still a logic error, and does nothing to support iron sharpening iron.


 
[Moderator]Wow. I'm not sure which of the quoted statements is harder to square with the facts. Let me make a "suggestion" (a moderatorial one).
Don't make sweeping historical claims without being prepared to back them up. Point us to an American reviser who saw "obvious logical flaws" - to whom the gross self-contradiction is as "patent" as it is to you. 
By the way, using your perception of someone's tone as a way to scold them for their statements doesn't help your argument. Might I suggest you drop the thinly veiled umbrage?[/Moderator]


----------



## MW (Apr 15, 2010)

Brian Withnell said:


> I disagree with the statement conclusion ... Asa and Jehoshaphat show no ministerial meddling as Uzziah. They did not attempt to go into the sphere of the church. There is no action where they did the equivalent. They did follow what the church had already decreed (they destroyed the idols that were already condemned by the church) but they did not convene synods or dictate the church must rule in a certain way.



Of course Asa and Jehoshaphat show no ministerial meddling. That is the point. They exercised their power CONCERNING religion, not IN religion, just as the Confession teaches. As for the extent to which they exercised their power, please consult the Scripture proofs appended to the statements of the Confession. They clearly indicate that these godly kings made provision for the unified and pure administration of the church without meddling in its offices or ordinances. E.g., 2 Chronicles 19:8.



Brian Withnell said:


> > The original WCF refuses civil authority power over the doctrine of the church. One would do well to understand what the original teaches before speaking against it.
> 
> 
> I think this is were I'm going to agree with those that have already stated that the confession is self-contradictory on the subject. It attempts to have it both ways, in saying the civil magistrate is to call synods and assure proper outcome of them, and not to assume the power of the keys of the kingdom. It is a work of men, and it was rightly corrected in the patent error of gross self-contradiction. The original American version fixed these obvious logical flaws. This is not just my evaluation of the matter, but it was the evaluation of the matter by others, and at least partial reason for the change in the original during the later 18th century by many others that saw the error.



Your basis for alleging contradiction is a belief that the Confession teaches what it repudiates, yet at no point do you undertake to prove that the Confession teaches what you call "meddling." As condescending as it might sound to you (though I can assure you it is not intended as such), I can only suggest that you study the Confession and try to grasp some of the distinctions which are inherent in its teaching, like the difference between power IN and CONCERNING religion. Your inability to discern this difference does indicate some degree of incompetency which needs to be rectified if you are going to stand in judgment on this highly esteemed document.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Apr 16, 2010)

> The American WCF XXIII:iii is inconsistent in calling civil magistrates “nursing fathers” but pretending they are to have no concern for the spiritual food of their children, promoting religious polytheistic pluralism. Such should be guilty of neglect. The civil magistrate is obligated to recognize biblical faith and Christ’s church, endorse and praise what is good. Failure to do so is to be in liable to wrath of Christ, against which civil magistrates are cautioned in Ps. 2:10-12.


The American confession states


> Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest


 and does not presume the magistrate should be feeding the flock, but protecting all from those that do evil.
Rather than stating the confession would be misinterpreted, it would seem your appeal to the CoS adding to it to correct the obvious statement (with what sounds rather loose "applied primarily to “kirks not settled”" would seem that if there are things not "primarily" applied there is the possibility of "secondarily" ... which is not limited). I do not contend the American version is perfect, but I do contend it better than the original, not from a standpoint of within a perfected state, but in the world before the end of the age.
How can one object to the civil magistrate calling an assembly to resolve religious issues? Easily. Just because Joseph was sold into slavery to a good end does not mean the means to the end was not wrong. Obviously God intended the calling of the assembly for good ... while I believe the American revision of the WCF to be better, I find that I would rather worship in a church that holds to the original than no confession at all. The confession was a good outcome of what I believe was an improper call of an assembly.
If the president wanted to call a group of Godly men to ask direction from God's word, that is one thing. For the president to call an assembly of Godly men to make rulings on doctrine within the church (and his overseeing it to make sure it is done "according to the mind of God") is yet another.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Apr 16, 2010)

> at no point do you undertake to prove that the Confession teaches what you call "meddling."


 Actually, I already did. That the original confession states:


> For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.


The last phrase "and to provide whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" is certainly, patently contradictory to


> The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven


If the magistrate has the power to assure whatever is transacted is what he feels is in accord with the mind of God, there is no authority left outside his control within the church, as he assures that councils and synods enact whatever he thinks is right.
I have studied the confession. What I see is plain. While there are those that want to explain away the power over the church given the magistrate, the original confession leaves little to no room for it. I see no reason to give Caesar the power over the church granted by the original WCF ... I certainly see no reason to give that power to anyone other than Christ. What I would suggest is you also look at it afresh, and see what it says. Not taking other accounts of how it was viewed, but read the plain text of it. It is a work of men, and so it does not have the prerogative of unchallenged claim to being infallible or even inerrant.
I do not believe scripture supports the view of the civil magistrate that he presides over synods to assure they enact only what the magistrate thinks is "according to the mind of God".


----------



## jogri17 (Apr 16, 2010)

Brian Withnell said:


> > at no point do you undertake to prove that the Confession teaches what you call "meddling."
> 
> 
> Actually, I already did. That the original confession states:
> ...


 Then you should in good conscience leave the OPC because it teaches false doctrine non? I think the revision was perfectly acceptable inlight of the fact that there is no more choosen nation of God outside the Church.


----------



## MW (Apr 16, 2010)

Brian Withnell said:


> I do not believe scripture supports the view of the civil magistrate that he presides over synods to assure they enact only what the magistrate thinks is "according to the mind of God".



The Confession does not support this view. It states nothing concerning presiding over synods. You would have to ignore the leading proposition of this section of the Confession in order to allow your interpretation. There is a consistent interpretation; you are just refusing to look into it. As Robert Shaw comments, "it will not be difficult to explain, in full consistency with the liberty and independence of the church, this section of our Confession." I think it incumbent on a reader of a document to accept the consistent interpretation of it over a contradictory interpretation. Your refusal to accept the consistent interpretation shows that you are either ignorant of it or are simply determined to find fault.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell (Apr 17, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



JPG: As you quote Brian and then suggest someone should leave the OPC, I have no idea whether you meant him or me. As Brian seems to have no problem with the American form of WCF XXIII:iii, I suppose you might mean me. If so, I’ll reply. Otherwise, excuse my ignorance in responding to this.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Apr 20, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> Brian Withnell said:
> 
> 
> > I do not believe scripture supports the view of the civil magistrate that he presides over synods to assure they enact only what the magistrate thinks is "according to the mind of God".
> ...


 
Given the plain meaning of the text "to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God" would support that view, and that a confession of faith ought to be descriptive of what a body of believers holds is the system of doctrine contained in the scriptures, having to dig through it to discover some interpretation or other that would allow it to be consistent is a failure of such a confession in the first place. Given the American version removes the possibility of the civil magistrate having authority over synods and councils (the view I believe is plainest in the original), I would say the American version is an improvement upon the original ... if for no reason than it is a better description of that system of doctrine taught in the scriptures.

---------- Post added at 01:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:43 AM ----------




Glenn Ferrell said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > Brian Withnell said:
> ...


 
Glenn,

My presumption is that you are in agreement with the American version, or that you have made such areas to which you take exception known to your presbytery, and have been accepted by that presbytery as your beliefs are in accord with the system of doctrine taught within the scriptures. My pastor, being on the candidates and credentials committee of our presbytery, has explained how it is possible for someone to not hold to 100% of confession and/or catechism and still be ordained. Personally, I do not think this particular rises to "essentials" of the doctrine taught in the scripture. I would never accuse you (or anyone else) of subversive continuance within the OPC while being out of accord with her standards. I have too much respect for what I see as integrity, and consistent, honest debate here to think that of you.

And thank you for seeing that I do support the American version, which is what the OPC constitution contains.


----------

