# Infallible Confession



## Dan1 (Jan 4, 2022)

Hi all, first time post…

I subscribe to the Westminster Standards and do not take any exceptions to the Confession. Recently, a friend asked why the OPC requires officers to not take exception to the Confession, and he wondered how that doesn’t put the Confession on par with Scripture. 

How would you articulate the importance of officers’ subscription to the confession, and how would you respond to my friend?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 4, 2022)

In short, full subscription to the Confession has nothing to do with any supposed infallibility or equal standing with Scripture’s authority, but has everything to do with church unity. If we have officers taking exceptions to the adopted standards of the church, then essentially they have no purpose except as nice artifacts of history and doctrine. I think every denomination ought to require full subscription to their own standards.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## JH (Jan 4, 2022)

Briefly to add, I certainly would not call the Westminster Standards infallible because the term carries with it the idea that it cannot possibly err, which ironically enough the document itself disagrees with (31.4). But that kind of gets into the whole "infallibility vs inerrancy" discussion. I believe the Westminster Standards can indeed err, but I have yet to find any to take exception with.

It is prerequisite that each denomination/sect have a statement of faith, as it is insufficient to say "We believe in the Bible." And so I say with James, "Thou believest the Bible: thou doest well, even heretics confess the same." Having no statement of faith/Creed may as well be synonymous with trying to sing a Psalm without a set tune, every man doing what is right in his own interpretation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 4, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Briefly to add, I certainly would not call the Westminster Standards infallible because the term carries with it the idea that it cannot possibly err, which ironically enough the document itself disagrees with (31.4).


I am not disagreeing with your over-all point, but please tell me how exactly WCF 31:4 "disagrees" with "the idea that it cannot possibly err." I'm just not seeing it.


----------



## JH (Jan 4, 2022)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I am not disagreeing with your over-all point, but please tell me how exactly WCF 31:4 "disagrees" with "the idea that it cannot possibly err." I'm just not seeing it.


Sure thing. When I read that all synods and councils are not capable of being the final rule of faith and practice because they "may err", I understand it to mean that it is possible for them to err; unlike the Scriptures which neither err, nor is it possible for the Holy Spirit to err in its divine authorship thereof. The paragraph to me seems to put in contrast the infallibility of the final rule of faith and practice (the Scriptures), and the fallibility of men. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." Does that make sense? I am saying it is indeed possible for the synods and councils to err (in this case, the Westminster Standards), but it is not at all possible for the Bible to have any error.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 4, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Sure thing. When I read that all synods and councils are not capable of being the final rule of faith and practice because they "may err", I understand it to mean that it is possible for them to err; unlike the Scriptures which neither err, nor is it possible for the Holy Spirit to err in its divine authorship thereof. The paragraph to me seems to put in contrast the infallibility of the final rule of faith and practice (the Scriptures), and the fallibility of men. "Let God be true, but every man a liar." Does that make sense? I am saying it is indeed possible for the synods and councils to err (in this case, the Westminster Standards), but it is not at all possible for the Bible to have any error.


Okay, I see it now. I was reading from the American revision which has that line in paragraph three.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 4, 2022)

I think it is necessary in this discussion to distinguish between the terms, _infallible_ and _inerrant_. Infallible means to be _incapable of error,_ while inerrant simply means _free from error._ We should recoil from calling any merely human work infallible. All men are capable of error and so all human works may contain error. The same is true for the Westminster Assembly, no less. However, that does not mean that we _must_ conclude that all human works necessarily contain some error. A work of human composition may indeed possess the quality of being inerrant—free from error. But using the term infallible is something I would only use of God and the inspired Word of God.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Jan 4, 2022)

Jerrod Hess said:


> Briefly to add, I certainly would not call the Westminster Standards infallible because the term carries with it the idea that it cannot possibly err, which ironically enough the document itself disagrees with (31.4). But that kind of gets into the whole "infallibility vs inerrancy" discussion. I believe the Westminster Standards can indeed err, but I have yet to find any to take exception with.
> 
> It is prerequisite that each denomination/sect have a statement of faith, as it is insufficient to say "We believe in the Bible." And so I say with James, "Thou believest the Bible: thou doest well, even heretics confess the same." Having no statement of faith/Creed may as well be synonymous with trying to sing a Psalm without a set tune, every man doing what is right in his own interpretation.


I think you can say a Confession of Faith not taken directly from the Bible is inerrant, but not that it is infallible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JH (Jan 4, 2022)

Jake said:


> I think you can say a Confession of Faith not taken directly from the Bible is inerrant, but not that it is infallible.


Amen, that's what I've been trying to communicate. Maybe I said something backwards or lack of sleep is getting to me


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 4, 2022)

Dan1 said:


> Hi all, first time post…
> 
> I subscribe to the Westminster Standards and do not take any exceptions to the Confession. Recently, a friend asked why the OPC requires officers to not take exception to the Confession, and he wondered how that doesn’t put the Confession on par with Scripture.
> 
> How would you articulate the importance of officers’ subscription to the confession, and how would you respond to my friend?


This is for the protection of the Church and her unity (as Taylor stated above). The infallible rule is Scripture. That the Confession itself teaches so no reason to think the OPC or any reformed denomination is putting it above Scripture. Yet, the Confession is a summary of what the Presbyterian Churches believe the Scripture teaches. Often times when the issue of 'exceptions' arises, there are a host of people who say, "Hey, why are you forcing people to hold to the Confession?" Really the question revolves around requiring an implicit faith. However, no man is forced to hold to the Confession. No one is required to, and if you don't no one is suggesting the person is not a Christian, and there are many branches of the Church of Christ. The only thing being held to is that if you want to be a minister/elder in _____ Presbyterian Church, then you must hold to this Confession which __(we)___ believe is a summary of what the Scripture says. Not everything the Scripture says but a good amount of it. 

Further, I do believe the OPC allows for stated differences to the Confession, however, if they are allowed exceptions by their Presbytery they are not allowed to teach or preach their view. They must teach/preach in accord with the Confession (now again not forcing the officer knows going in and agrees to submit to this). Otherwise, what happens, I might say the PCA is a fine example of why this is important. And my PCA brothers on here I believe will agree with me. When you allow exceptions and for an officer to preach/teach their contrary views, then you get a schizophrenic denomination and churches. Every church is vastly different where one has no clue what you will hear from one church to another. The Church's teaching should be pretty much the same for the sake of unity in the truth.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 4, 2022)

Also the confession can change, American revisions, scripture cannot. A confession is also an identity, this is who we are by what we believe and practice. Now confessions are hard to change, and should be, but they can change.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jan 4, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Also the confession can change, American revisions, scripture cannot. A confession is also an identity, this is who we are by what we believe and practice. Now confessions are hard to change, and should be, but they can change.


This is a pet peeve of mine. The American revisions should really be given a different name and called a different confession, just like the Baptist revision did. There's something almost dishonest about making the section on the Civil Magistrate say the opposite of what it actually says, and still call it the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is not aimed at you by the way, just a general comment that came to mind upon reading yours.

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 2


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 4, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> This is a pet peeve of mine. The American revisions should really be given a different name and called a different confession, just like the Baptist revision did. There's something almost dishonest about making the section on the Civil Magistrate say the opposite of what it actually says, and still call it the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is not aimed at you by the way, just a general comment that came to mind upon reading yours.


I understand. My point is that it can change and did at least. How one feels about it is a matter of personal opinion. But good point none the less. Although would the original work in an American context? Legally it will never work but I guess as an unrealized theory. But I'm just meandering, I don't want to derail the thread.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 4, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> This is a pet peeve of mine. The American revisions should really be given a different name and called a different confession, just like the Baptist revision did. There's something almost dishonest about making the section on the Civil Magistrate say the opposite of what it actually says, and still call it the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is not aimed at you by the way, just a general comment that came to mind upon reading yours.



AMEN!



jwright82 said:


> I understand. My point is that it can change and did at least. How one feels about it is a matter of personal opinion. But good point none the less. Although would the original work in an American context? Legally it will never work but I guess as an unrealized theory. But I'm just meandering, I don't want to derail the thread.



It can/should work in every nation, but the nation needs first to amend its own (sinful) constitution.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 4, 2022)

Romans922 said:


> AMEN!
> 
> 
> 
> It can/should work in every nation, but the nation needs first to amend its own (sinful) constitution.


Not to be candid but good luck with that. But you are correct that it would require a complete overhaul of our government, most of the law etc.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jan 4, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> This is a pet peeve of mine. The American revisions should really be given a different name and called a different confession, just like the Baptist revision did. There's something almost dishonest about making the section on the Civil Magistrate say the opposite of what it actually says, and still call it the Westminster Confession of Faith. This is not aimed at you by the way, just a general comment that came to mind upon reading yours.


I've been asked over the years what I think about making a new "revision" of the Baptist Confession of 1689. I simply reply: Whatever the final product would be, it would not be the 1689. It would be something else. And if a group of men or churches want to get together and do that, by all means. But please, don't call it "The 1689." Though I suspect this is exactly what would happen. They will want to keep the brand "1689" while embracing formulations completely out of step with their seventeenth century forebearers. But I digress.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Jan 4, 2022)

jwright82 said:


> Not to be candid but good luck with that. But you are correct that it would require a complete overhaul of our government, most of the law etc.


None of this is the point though (for the purposes of this discussion). If people want a confession that lines up with the US Constitution, have at it. Just give it a name of it's own is all I'm saying, so everyone can distinguish what confession it is that's actually being subscribed to.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dan1 (Jan 4, 2022)

Taylor said:


> In short, full subscription to the Confession has nothing to do with any supposed infallibility or equal standing with Scripture’s authority, but has everything to do with church unity. If we have officers taking exceptions to the adopted standards of the church, then essentially they have no purpose except as nice artifacts of history and doctrine. I think every denomination ought to require full subscription to their own standards.


Thank you for reaching out with a conversation. My response was getting an error message so I'll need to reach out to an admin.


----------



## jwright82 (Jan 4, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> None of this is the point though (for the purposes of this discussion). If people want a confession that lines up with the US Constitution, have at it. Just give it a name of it's own is all I'm saying, so everyone can distinguish what confession it is that's actually being subscribed to.


Fair enough. Is calling the confession WCF: American Revised Addition good enough? Verses WCF: Original Edition or Unaltered Edition? Lutherans distinguish between the altered and unaltered Augsburg Confession for instance.


----------



## Dan1 (Jan 4, 2022)

The responses have been helpful, thank you. The point of unity is clear and helpful, and the simple antidote I needed to better engage with my friend.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 4, 2022)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> There's something almost dishonest about making the section on the Civil Magistrate say the opposite of what it actually says, and still call it the Westminster Confession of Faith.


----------

