# In Which Way Do You Subscribe to Your Confession?



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

I love the WCF. And for that matter, there is a lot of really good stuff in the 1689 baptist confession too.

I believe the WCF is an excellent summary of much Scripture. But I do not believe that the WCF _itself_ is inspired. It is not Scripture. But it is a very, very, good manmade document that expounds Scripture very well at most points.

In another forum, one person really got under my skin when he quoted one particular point from the WCF, and then said that the "burden of proof" is on me if I disagree with it. --- I simply asked him to back up his position with Scripture. But he refused me twice, stating that the confession is authoritative, and that he has no need to turn to the Bible itself to prove his case. --- I think this is wrong!!! In my mind, this is hardly different from the pharisees who lifted up their manmade tradition to the same level (or even above) the Word of God.

Everybody on this board (as far as I know) agrees that the WCF is very good in most respects.

But is it *ever* right to just quote the confession in response to a debate, and then to completely neglect any reference to the Bible itself? When in a debate, shouldn't we *always* follow the confession back to the Scriptures, and then use the authoritative Word of God itself?

Let me know your thoughts. I love the WCF and hold to almost everything in it. But I have a real problem with anyone who thinks it's OK to rely on any confession to the point that the Bible itself takes a backseat.


----------



## wsw201 (May 17, 2005)

> But is it *ever* right to just quote the confession in response to a debate, and then to completely neglect any reference to the Bible itself? When in a debate, shouldn't we *always* follow the confession back to the Scriptures, and then use the authoritative Word of God itself?



That is why when I quote the Standards I usually (if not always) include the Scripture references. But I use the Standards as short hand in order not to get into a lengthy post. The Standards give a concise answer to most questions.


----------



## sastark (May 17, 2005)

> But he refused me twice, stating that the confession is authoritative, and that he has no need to turn to the Bible itself to prove his case.



Joseph, are you purposefully misrepresenting me? I clearly said that the Confession is authoritative because it is a summary of Scripture.

Here is my *exact* quote.



> The confessions are summaries of the Scriptures, as you well know. They are NOT extra-biblical since they only summarize what is in the Bible. When I argue a point, I am able to quote the confessions because they are summaries of Scripture and therefore authoritative.
> 
> 
> Therefore, if you disagree with how the WCF says we ought to interpret Scripture, you need to address the confession and the Scripture proofs given by the Confession. The burden of proof lies with the one who disagrees with the Confession.



Brother, you and I may disagree on certain things, but can we please refrain from misrepresenting each other?


----------



## Arch2k (May 17, 2005)

I agree with the general point you are making, but citing the WCF WITH IT'S SCRIPTURE PROOFS does add an amount of authority since you appealing to scripture as well. Ultimately (as even the WCF states), all disputes should resort to scripture, and not just translations, but the original languages. That being said, the WCF carries with it a great amount of scriptural backing, as noted by the proof texts, and even great portions of the confession are quotes from Holy Writ.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (May 17, 2005)

are there any denominations that require subscription from average members not ruling or teaching elders?


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I agree with the general point you are making, but citing the WCF WITH IT'S SCRIPTURE PROOFS does add an amount of authority since you appealing to scripture as well. Ultimately (as even the WCF states), all disputes should resort to scripture, and not just translations, but the original languages. That being said, the WCF carries with it a great amount of scriptural backing, as noted by the proof texts, and even great portions of the confession are quotes from Holy Writ.



I agree with you. 

But when there is a disagreement over any particular point of doctrine, a person should say what those Scripture proofs are, instead of just telling me to go look it up myself. What bothers me most is when people say things like, "The burden of proof lies with the one who disagrees with the Confession." --- If a person said, "Such-and-such part of the Confession has such-and-such Scripture proofs, and the burden of proof lies with the one who disagrees with those Scriptures," then instead of getting upset, I would simply ask the person which Scriptures they are talking about. Then we could discuss those particular Scriptures.

But when a person just quotes the confession as proof, and doesn't go to any trouble to quote *any* foundational Scripture, I have a problem with that. Just telling me to go look up the Scripture proofs for myself doesn't cut it.

That's what I meant by "following the confession back to the Scriptures". It's fine to use the confession as a type of shorthand. But anytime there is debate over doctrine, we *must* go directly to the Scriptures. The confession *itself* is not authoritative.

Of course I recognize that some parts of the confession quote a lot of Scripture. In those cases the words are authoritative because they are Scripture, not because they are part of the confession. So even in those cases, the quote's original location in the Bible should be cited.

In short, the confession is great for summing up what we believe, and for discussing things in shorthand with like-minded people. But when there is disagreement, the Bible is the only authoritative place to go.


----------



## wsw201 (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> are there any denominations that require subscription from average members not ruling or teaching elders?



I think some of the Dutch churches do, but I don't remember which ones.


----------



## Poimen (May 17, 2005)

The OCRC takes a high view of subscription: 

All office-bearers are required to sign a form which states that they believe "all the articles and points of doctrine contained in the Confession and Catechism of the Reformed Churches, together with the explanation of some points of the aforesaid doctrine made by the National Synod of Dordrecht, 1618-'19, do fully agree with the Word of God." They must teach and defend these doctrines and may not directly or indirectly contradict the same by their preaching or writing. 

If they have reservations about the doctrine, they must first come to their consistory, classis or synod (session, presbytery and General Assembly for your presbyters!) to be examined as to the truth of their statement. If they are found at odds with scripture they must be submit to the judgment of the higher body or be suspended from office. 

I prefer this manner of subscription because it limits the channels that false doctrine may use to enter into our federation. And there are always 'courts' to appeal to if you feel you have been wrong. Our CO spells it out clearly: if a person goes to their consistory (session) to appeal a statement of the confessions and the consistory disagrees, that person may bring their objection to classis (prebytery). If they disagree then it's on to Synod (GA), and if they disagree then the person must submit or find a new church home to prevent the disunity of the body. Otherwise, a vote must be taken in order to change the 3FU if it is found to be out of accord with scripture. 

As far as our members, the subscription they make (an oath not signed) at the time of their profession of faith is such that they submit themselves to the doctrine of the church and her officebearers if they should become delinquent in doctrine or in life. So if they disagreed with the confessions, they too would have to come to consistory in order for the right procedure to be enacted, again preventing unwarranted schism in the church. However it would be far more grievous for an officebearer to begin contradicting the 3FU in public than it would be a member.

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by poimen]


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> The OCRC takes a high view of subscription




I really like this quote from your church's website:

"We wish to preserve an essential distinction between Scripture and confessions. The Bible is God´s Word, infallible, inerrant. The confessions are man´s word"”the churches´ word"”fallible, subject to error. The Bible comes from God to us; it is first."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by rmwilliamsjr_
> are there any denominations that require subscription from average members not ruling or teaching elders?



I'm not 100% sure on this, but I think the Reformed Presbytery North America does.


----------



## Poimen (May 17, 2005)

To add to the above, it would certainly be warrantable to appeal to the authority of the confessions since everyone has said that they would submit to them. Indeed I am reminded that the Confessions are built upon the exegesis of scripture and so carry it's authority with it. 

On the other hand it would certainly not be wise to merely reference the Confessions because of the next generation who needs to be taught that the Word of God fully agrees with the confessions, and also because there is a watching and waiting world that must know that God's Holy Word is not the words of men, but of those prophets of old who moved by the Holy Spirit.

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Poimen (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Well I agree as well as this is a basic summary statement of the content one finds in the Belgic Confession of Faith, Article 7



> We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.



I hope you are not saying that this statement contradicts what I posted. 
 You're not, right? 

Also our website says, right under the statement that you quoted, 


> We are a confessing church. Our confessions are the following historic, Reformation creeds: the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1618-19).


----------



## sastark (May 17, 2005)

Rev. Kok,

I agree. In a format such as PuritanBoard, where we all hold to a confession, I believe it is permissable to simply quote a confession. We should all know that there are Scripture proofs to every point in the confession, and if someone quotes the confession and we have a question, the first thing to do is go and look up those scripture proofs.

In a format outside PuritanBoard, such as a discussion with the average evangelical, then we need to show our proof directly from Scripture.


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (May 17, 2005)

i could use some reading references to subscription. 
I'm trying to build a good metaphor to explain it, i've worked out a way of looking at the confessions as a topical index to Scripture. Analogous to the way the canon appears as a table of contents, the Confession appears as an ordered list of topics and indexes into Scripture(with proof texts). This 1)is an ordered list by priority or necessity to believe to be orthodox 2)is a systematic way of presentation 3)is a memory help to index.

essay is at:
http://dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/hap2.html


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...




No, it does not contradict your post. I was just pointing out that even a "high view" confessional subscriptionist can agree with the heart of my original point: The confessions are excellent. But they are *always* secondary to Scripture. No confession makes a 67th book of the Bible.

I was just trying to press my point home. I was not contradicting you.


----------



## Poimen (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Excellent. That's what I thought. Thanks for the clarification brother.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I love the WCF. And for that matter, there is a lot of really good stuff in the 1689 baptist confession too.
> 
> I believe the WCF is an excellent summary of much Scripture. But I do not believe that the WCF _itself_ is inspired. It is not Scripture. But it is a very, very, good manmade document that expounds Scripture very well at most points.
> ...



Joseph,

This is the second time I have seen you throw a poll up that poses a question to which neither of the alternative aswers you supply are agreeable. (The last one was about whether or not Arminians were regenerate, an impossible question to answer.)

In this one you give us the equally impossible choice between the Bible only or the WCF only. (I notice you have gotten the same number of poll replies to the last one!) No truly Reformed person would disagree with your contention that the Bible is and ought to be the final authority on rules of faith and practice. I say final authority because it is not the only authority. Please hear me: I AM NOT IN ANYWAY SUGGESTING THE BIBLE IS INFERIOR IN ITS AUTHORITY TO ANY OTHER THING. Having cleared that up, there is a certain flaw in the "me and my Bible" position. It is simply this: the Bible is not as clear on as many issues that we would like to think it is. If it were, there would not be such a proliferation of theologies among those who claim to have the Bible as their final authority.

That, then means, that we require a guide in the understanding of the Scriptures. Such guides, in the forms of creeds, articulate what the Church believes the Bible teaches. The great ecumenical creeds articulated what it meant to be a Christian. You don't believe in the Trinity? Fine, but you're not a Christian. You don't believe in the hypostatic union? Fine, but you're not a Christian.

The secondary creeds (I can't think of a better adjective) arose out of the Reformation as the Reformers set about to return to the Scriptures and to cast out the errors of Rome. The one downside to the Reformation (if there was one!), though, was that the ecumenical nature of the Church was forever lost as Lutherans and Reformed and Anglicans went their separate ways, each seeing themselves as the continuation of the apostolic, catholic, orthodox tradition. Their secondary creeds, then, did not so much define what it meant to be a Christian (for the most part), but what it meant to be a Lutheran, or Dutch Reformed, or Anabaptist (OK...they never really wrote a creed), or an Anglican, or a Presbyterian, or a Puritan. The secondary issue, then, became identification with a particular branch of Reformed theology. You think it's unbiblical to baptize babies? Fine, but you're not a Presbyterian (or Anglican or Lutheran or Dutch Reformed).

Now there remains a tension as to the extent to which we use the creeds. On the one hand, we wish to affirm that the Bible is the final authority. As I said before, on the other hand, it is not the only authority: the Church interpreting the Bible is a secondary authority; the light of reason is a tertiary authority. The latter two are aids to understanding the first. The reason son (I suspect) are willing to appeal to the WCF as a debate ender is twofold: 1). There is no reason unduly reinvent the wheel. Must each generation truly rediscover theology? Not if we believe that the Holy Spirit has guided the collective thinking of the Church through the ages. 2). There is also no reason to think that our objections to the arguments of the WCF are all that novel. They didn't just prooftext (though there was some of that!) but they argued and reasoned. The end result was that most of our "objections" were already dealth with.

If you truly believe that the Confessions are wrong in an area, by all means, show it from Scripture. The reason the burden of proof is on YOU is because the arguments from Scripture have already been made to create the WCF in the first place.

So, I cannot answer your poll (again), but I look forward to the ensuing discussion.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> ...




First of all, you are incorrect. My poll choices were not "the Bible only" or "the WCF only". Please do not put words in my mouth. My first poll choice was essentially "WCF only", but my second poll choice was for BOTH the Bible and the WCF. Booting out the WCF was NOT one of the two options I gave.

What "third choice" should I have given in the poll? Please let me know. I was very careful about wording my poll questions well. And I honestly don't know how I could have been any clearer.

As for the other poll about whether some Arminians are regenerate, it really is not all that ambiguous, is it? If you believe that ALL Arminians will go to hell, then the answer would be "no". If you believe that SOME Arminians will go to Heaven, then the answer would be "yes". --- Nevertheless, there's probably some way I could have worded it better.

But I was much more careful with my wording of the questions on this poll. My questions boil down to this:

1) Is the WCF so trustworthy that I don't even need to refer back to Scripture itself?

2) Even though the WCF is great, should I always refer back to Scripture anyway?

Both questions include the WCF. Only the second question includes the Bible.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

The confession is a simple way of expressing what one believes the bible to say. I don't see why this is such a travesty. The WCF IS trustworthy. However, it was never intended to replace scripture, and it doesn't. But tell me, why is it bad to use the confession when we are speaking to _confessional_ Christians?


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The confession is a simple way of expressing what one believes the bible to say. I don't see why this is such a travesty. The WCF IS trustworthy. However, it was never intended to replace scripture, and it doesn't. But tell me, why is it bad to use the confession when we are speaking to _confessional_ Christians?



I don't think it's bad.

I just think it's bad to refuse to quote specific Scriptures when someone requests it.

If someone quotes something from the WCF and we both agree, then great. But if I still come back requesting specific Scriptural backing for something, I don't like to be told that the WCF is good enough on its own, and that the other person has no need to quote Scripture.

Don't get me wrong. I love the WCF. But if I ask for Scripture at a certain point in a discussion, that means that I want Scripture.

Fair enough?


----------



## fredtgreco (May 17, 2005)

Joseph,

You are missing the interaction of the Confessions with Scripture as a means of getting at the truth of Scripture.

For example:

1. Do you think the burden of proof should be on the one who affirms the Trinity, or denies it? This is an immensly practical question, especially when we see that Scripture quoting often degenerates it "it says this" "no it doesn't" "yes it does" "no it doesn't"

2. How do you deal with an Arian/Jehovah's Witness? Before you speak too quickly, please remember that the Arians NEVER once questioned a Scripture text, but always said that they were able to affirm what the text said - in their own interpretation. Was Athanasius wrong to insist on an extra-Biblical statement as a test of orthodoxy? Because that was what he did.

3. What about the current FV controversy?

Kevin is right - your choices give me no choice. The correct choice is to rely on the Scriptures and to cite the Confession as my interpretation of what the Scriptures say. It is much less helpful to simply "throw out verses" and hope that they stick.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> First of all, you are incorrect. My poll choices were not "the Bible only" or "the WCF only". Please do not put words in my mouth. My first poll choice was essentially "WCF only", but my second poll choice was for BOTH the Bible and the WCF. Booting out the WCF was NOT one of the two options I gave.
> 
> What "third choice" should I have given in the poll? Please let me know. I was very careful about wording my poll questions well. And I honestly don't know how I could have been any clearer.



First off, if my comments seemed combative, my apologies. That was not the intention. Nevertheless, I stand by my remarks on the poll question. You create the logical fallacy of dilemma, a double _reductio_ that leads to only one of two choices, defined by you, neither of which I (or, apparently, anyone else) wishes to be limited to. You leave us between choosing the WCF alone or the Bible alone. The problem with your poll is that it does not offer choice C: "I quote the WCF, as they are a faithful and accurate representation of the system of doctrine found in the Bible and because it is the end of the semester and I have two finals tomorrow and not enough time to prove to the pollster something from the Scriptures that has already been proven and articulated in the WCF and causes, therefore, the burden of proof to be upon the pollster to prove otherwise!"  Or something such...

[Edited on 5-17-2005 by kevin.carroll]


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 1. Do you think the burden of proof should be on the one who affirms the Trinity, or denies it? This is an immensly practical question, especially when we see that Scripture quoting often degenerates it "it says this" "no it doesn't" "yes it does" "no it doesn't"



If someone denies the Trinity, it is my job to point out the specific Scriptures that teach the doctrine of the Trinity. If they don't listen to the clear Scriptures that I point out, then they certainly aren't going to listen to any confession. When you discuss baptism with pastor Way, does he just say "the 1689 confession says . . .", with you replying that "the WCF says . . ." ? Of course not. If two people disagree over any doctrine, the Scriptures are the place to go for discussion.




> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 2. How do you deal with an Arian/Jehovah's Witness? Before you speak too quickly, please remember that the Arians NEVER once questioned a Scripture text, but always said that they were able to affirm what the text said - in their own interpretation. Was Athanasius wrong to insist on an extra-Biblical statement as a test of orthodoxy? Because that was what he did.



When I talk to Jehovah's Witnesses, I intentionally refrain from quoting the standard passages that people often use with them, like "the Father and I are one". Instead, I like to go to places like Romans 5, where it says that the son should receive *equal* honor as the Father. Or I point out Isaiah 9 and 10. Or I point out various OT/NT cross-references that display Christ's deity. I certainly would never quote a confession to them. Why do you think that confessions would hold any weight with them?

Athanasius was not wrong to insist on an extra-Biblical statement as a test of orthodoxy. But it would be wrong to try to use that statement as *proof* that a particular doctrinal statement is correct. 

Using confessions as a test is one thing. Using them to try to settle doctrinal questions is quite another. 



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 3. What about the current FV controversy?



I don't know enough about FV to give an answer. I just picked up some books on it, but I'm a newbie to that particular subject. At the moment, I'm confused, because I know a lot of respectable people hate it (like you and Matt), but other respectable people (like Doug Wilson) are favorable towards it. So I need to read about it to figure out just what FV is. 



> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> Kevin is right - your choices give me no choice. The correct choice is to rely on the Scriptures and to cite the Confession as my interpretation of what the Scriptures say. It is much less helpful to simply "throw out verses" and hope that they stick.



When witnessing to an unbeliever, would you quote the confession, and expect him to believe it? Or would you teach him the gospel directly from the Scriptures? --- However, once he knew about the gospel taught in Romans, then you might very well ask him if he agrees with the WCF's statements on salvation, as a *test* to see if he understands salvation correctly.

If I quote the WCF to an unbeliever, then he may just say that the WCF is the writing of men, and is not God's infallible Word. And I would have to concede the point.

If I quote Scripture to an unbeliever, then he may say that the Bible is the writing of men, and is not God's infallible Word. But here, I would NOT concede the point. 

That little difference makes *all* the difference.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 17, 2005)

There are, broadly, two historic approaches to subscription, both denominated with Latin terms, Quia (because) and Quatenus (so far as).

The Dutch Reformed (with most of the European Reformed churches) have subscribed (the metaphor is of one writing one's name under a document, as personal, hearty, affirmation, therefore we subscribe a confession, we do not subscribe to it) the Belgic or French/Gallic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort BECUASE (quia) they are biblical. If they can be shown to be unbiblical in the courts of the churches, then the standards must be revised.

Yes, in most of these churches, members are required (as in Oceanside URC) to subscribe the Three Forms as a condition of membership.

The Presbyterian (Scots-Irish and Scots and American) tradition began quia, but in the Modern period (from the arguably from the Adopting Act of 1729, but certainly by 1789) tradition has largely subscribed the WCF "insofar as" (Quatenus) the Confession is judged to be Biblical. There is assumed to be some room between Scripture and confession. There are conservative, moderate and liberal versions of the Quatenus approach. This is the discussion over "system" vs. "full" or "strict" subscription.

See David Hall, ed. The Practice of Confessional Subscription for an excellent and thorough discussion. 

For more material on the confessions see http://public.csusm.edu/public/guests/rsclark/Catechesis.html

As to whether a confession should be cited as the final word in a discussion, doesn't it depend on context and form of subscription? If one subscribes Quia and is talking to someone else of the same confession (or family of confessions) then there is a presumption (onus probandi) that this is the correct interpretation of Scripture.

The Confessions are truly only because they are an accurate reflection of Scripture, but among those who profess to be Reformed they deserve privilege, do they not? They summarize our understanding of Scripture. Do we have to re-think all our theology from the ground up in every generation? Our faith needs to be re-expressed in every generation, but re-worked?

rsc

rsc


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> First off, if my comments seemed combative, my apologies. That was not the intention.



Same here, brother. I just like a healthy discussion. I'm not trying to be combative either. (If I do come across that way, please forgive me.)



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> Nevertheless, I stand by my remarks on the poll question. You create the logical fallacy of dilemma, a double _reductio_ that leads to only one of two choices, defined by you, neither of which I (or, apparently, anyone else) wishes to be limited to.



Really? 15 people have voted so far, and 12 of them (80%) side with me.



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> You leave us between choosing the WCF alone or the Bible alone.



No, I don't. As I already said, choice #1 was for the WCF alone, but choice #2 was for the WCF plus the Bible. I did not leave the WCF out of either choice.



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> The problem with your poll is that it does not offer choice C: "I quote the WCF, as they are a faithful and accurate representation of the system of doctrine found in the Bible and because it is the end of the semester and I have two finals tomorrow and not enough time to prove to the pollster something from the Scriptures that has already been proven and articulated in the WCF and causes, therefore, the burden of proof to be upon the pollster to prove otherwise!" Or something such...



That's cute, but it ignores two problems:

1) First, if a person believes that the WCF is "a faithful and accurate representation of the system of doctrine found in the Bible", then there certainly must be Scriptures that support that person's claim. Therefore, the person should be readily able to provide them. If not, then it seems to me that person would be blinding following the confession, which certainly would be wrong.

2) It may be fine to quote the confession, initially. I quote it myself. But if the other person in the discussion comes back a second time and specifically requests Scriptural proof for something, then Scripture should be provided. If the other person doesn't have time, then he should say so, and the discussion can be postponed. Otherwise, that person is just hiding behind the confession. 


The WCF is an excellent summary of Scripture, at most points. But how many ministers take exception (for example) to the "exclusive psalmody" section of the WCF, or to the section that proclaims the pope as the antichrist? Many of them do! And I certainly do not believe that any "burden of proof" rests on them for doing so. Should we eventually get around to studying those things deeply in the Scriptures? Certainly. But should we blindly follow the confession in these areas until we have thoroughly studied? Of course not. I will never believe that we should exclusively sing psalms, until I see compelling evidence to support that view. For me, the burden of proof is on the WCF, and not the other way around.

I hold to the WCF because I agree that about 98% of what it says matches what I see in the Bible. But there is not even one thing that I believe *merely* because it is taught in the WCF. *That* is what I believe would be severely wrong.


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> If I quote the WCF to an unbeliever, then he may just say that the WCF is the writing of men, and is not God's infallible Word. And I would have to concede the point.
> 
> If I quote Scripture to an unbeliever, then he may say that the Bible is the writing of men, and is not God's infallible Word. But here, I would NOT concede the point.
> ...



False analogy. Adherence to the WCF is a test of orthodoxy for Presbyterians. While it is, we believe, a correct expression of biblical truth, it would not be the starting point for a discussion with an unbeliever, as it would be with you.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

Here are the choices:


> When a debate arises, I simply answer by quoting from the confession, because it is just as authoritative as Scripture itself. There is no need for me to go any further to prove my case from the Bible.



I would never agree to this.......the confession is not as authoritative!



> When a debate arises, even if I totally agree with my confession, I still go directly to the Scriptures to prove my case. The confession is excellent, but it is still manmade.



I disagree with this as well. If I am talking to someone from a PCA church, I will use the confession to streamline the conversation.

The poll could have been worded differently. They have a bias.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> Do we have to re-think all our theology from the ground up in every generation? Our faith needs to be re-expressed in every generation, but re-worked?



Absolutely!!! As much as possible, I think it is the duty of *every* generation to search the Scriptures in-depth to determine truth. 

I believe that *every* generation should hold up the confessions (and any other man-made documents) to the light of Scripture, to see whether or not they are correct. That is what I did with the WCF, and it turns out that I agree with about 98% of what it says.

May God have mercy on any generation that blindly follows any confession, without first comparing it with Scripture itself. The confessions are wonderful. But they should never be canonized.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

> I believe that *every* generation should hold up the confessions (and any other man-made documents) to the light of Scripture, to see whether or not they are correct.



OK. I agree. But after I have done that, if I am speaking with Matt about justification, why would it be wrong to cite the summary on the subject from the confession?


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> Adherence to the WCF is a test of orthodoxy for Presbyterians.



I don't quite agree. Certainly it *contains* a lot of doctrines that Presbyterians use as tests for orthodoxy. But a huge number of Presbyterians take exceptions to various parts of the confession.

Do all Presbyterians sing Psalms exclusively?

Do all Presbyterians believe that historical study adds *nothing* to a proper understanding of Scripture?

Do all Presbyterians believe that the pope is the antichrist?

Is a person "unorthodox" if he disagrees with the WCF on these 3 counts?


Especially when commonly disputed issues are being discussed, I think it is a shame to hide behind any confession. Even *confessional* people disagree with various points of the confessions. Otherwise, there would be no partial-preterists on this board. Neither would there be anybody on this board who sings anything other than Psalms. 

When a doctrine is under dispute, we need to turn to the Scriptures themselves. . . . especially with often-disputed issues within Presbyterianism.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> > I believe that *every* generation should hold up the confessions (and any other man-made documents) to the light of Scripture, to see whether or not they are correct.
> ...



There is nothing wrong with that at all. I even do things like that.

I'm just specifically talking about times that disputes arise between Presbyterians. For example, what if you and Matt disagree on some minor point regarding justification? At that particular point, I don't think it would do either of you much good to quote the confession again. Instead, you each should present your Scriptural support for your respective views.

But I agree with you: Most of the time, there is nothing wrong at all with quoting the confession among fellow Reformed people. I just had doctrinal *disputes* in mind. . . . not doctrinal discussion in general.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



Joseph,

You have just accurately described why Presbyterianism is in a complete state of chaos, why it is almost impossible to discipline anyone for doctrinal heresy, and why instead of asking, "I have a member that is moving to X. What is the local PCA (or OPC or URCNA) church there?" We have to ask, "what is the PCA (or OPC or URCNA) church there really like?" Do they believe in the RPW? Do they let women lead worship? Where do they stand on FV? Are they antinomian? etc., etc. etc...

We need to remember that the WCF is a *consensus* document, that witnesses to a *generic Calvinism*. It is intended to *unify.*

Talk to Sinclair Ferguson about this when you are at WTS-Dallas.

[Edited on 5/17/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Robin (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> There are, broadly, two historic approaches to subscription, both denominated with Latin terms, Quia (because) and Quatenus (so far as).
> 
> The Dutch Reformed (with most of the European Reformed churches) have subscribed (the metaphor is of one writing one's name under a document, as personal, hearty, affirmation, therefore we subscribe a confession, we do not subscribe to it) the Belgic or French/Gallic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism and Canons of Dort BECUASE (quia) they are biblical. If they can be shown to be unbiblical in the courts of the churches, then the standards must be revised.
> ...



As a war-torn, refugee from the Evangelly-fisheries...I can't begin to express the depth of gratitude and relief it has been subscribing to these confessions - upheld by the URC. 

Thank God, we don't have to re-work our theology in every generation....

Thank God for teachers who devote themselves to really holding to such precious and beloved confessions --- they are fine summaries of Holy Scripture.

Robin


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> Really? 15 people have voted so far, and 12 of them (80%) side with me.



Really? Every time I have looked at the poll there have been zero responses. I guess I am having technical difficulties.



> No, I don't. As I already said, choice #1 was for the WCF alone, but choice #2 was for the WCF plus the Bible. I did not leave the WCF out of either choice.



I disagree. You can see your meaning because you wrote the poll. I am interpreting what you wrote and don't see it as clearly. But I can live with your explanation.



> That's cute, but it ignores two problems:
> 
> 1) First, if a person believes that the WCF is "a faithful and accurate representation of the system of doctrine found in the Bible", then there certainly must be Scriptures that support that person's claim. Therefore, the person should be readily able to provide them. If not, then it seems to me that person would be blinding following the confession, which certainly would be wrong.



There is Scriptural support, the Scriptural proofs, and you have been enjoined to look them up, rather than have us articulate something already in print. Economy of time, brother.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 17, 2005)

Kevin,

You can't see poll votes until you vote yourself.

Now go study for History 2!


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Tell me, have you really agonized over the doctrine of the Trinity? Have you struggled with the doctrine of the hypostatic union? Or are they "givens" for you?


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Kevin,
> 
> You can't see poll votes until you vote yourself.
> ...


'

Oooooooh! But I do not wish to vote, since it is a poorly worded poll.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 17, 2005)

Either click "View Results" or pick the middle (blank) option.

Now {putting on Darth Vader voice} because I have done this for you, you shall write my essay tomorrow.... {putting off voice}


----------



## R. Scott Clark (May 17, 2005)

I agree totally that the confessions must be examined by the Scriptures, but who gets to interpret the Scriptures? You? I?

As Reformed folk we read the Scriptures in the CHURCH and with the CHURCH and the Reformed and Presbyterian churches have expressed her interpretation of Scripture on the most essential points in their confessions. 

Another way to say this is to say that, unlike most of American evangelicalism, we are not biblicists ("just I and my bible, in the closet"). 

The Confessions are not incorrigible, but neither are they are not a wax nose. 

Whoever spoke re the state of chaos the Reformed world makes a very important point. There are a number of points at which (worship chief among them) where the WCF and the Three Forms have been disregarded blatantly. Many of our churches now conduct services that are closer to those of Charles Finney than they are to John Calvin. This phenomenon can only be ascribed to the poor state of confessional understanding among us.

As to WCF 25.6, the American Presbyterians omitted that article in 1789. There were revisions (re church-state relations) in 1729 in the Adopting Act also. 

Confessions must be adopted ecclesiastically and the adopting body has always (since the Scots did it in 1648) had the right to say what they understand by a clause or to omit an article. 

Thus, no American Presbyterian denomination (i.e., those descended from the Northern and Southern Presbyterians, excluding the Covenanters and the ARP and those with direct Scots heritage) holds the WCF as it was promulgated in 1647.

This is the significance of the "system" vs. "full" subscription debate. Those who practically reject the Reformed RPW say that they can do it and still hold the "system." Now Hodge defended "system" subscription, but he never certainly meant to allow Pentecostalism to parade as Presbyterianism.

We really do need to recommit ourselves to be more faithful to our confessions and honest in our subscription. If we find that we can no longer subscribe them in good conscience, in the way they were intended to be read and subscribed and in the way they were adopted by one's denomination, then we should say so and perhaps go to a broader church where confessional fidelity and integrity is not a virtue.

On this see Murray's fine essay on subscription (see the bibliography I linked earlier). This was Machen's argument in Christianity and Liberalism. 

rsc


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Kevin,
> 
> You can't see poll votes until you vote yourself.
> ...



All I need is a 58% baby!!!


----------



## kevin.carroll (May 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Either click "View Results" or pick the middle (blank) option.
> 
> Now {putting on Darth Vader voice} because I have done this for you, you shall write my essay tomorrow.... {putting off voice}



It's done and it's a beaut. I decided to do Calvin, Fox, Wesley, Finney...and pontificate on their approaches to salvation.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 17, 2005)

Just to chip my ...

My own denomination does adhere to the 1646 WCF. It does have a Scottish connection and John Murray is acknowledged to be the founder of our denomination. 

I believe the 1646 WCF to be the finest systematic expression of Biblical theology in credal form yet developed. It is a confession of what the Bible teaches, based completely upon Scripture, with the purpose in mind of uniting the church around those things which must be believed. 

Not every point of doctrine contained therein is essential to the faith, but it is all true and, as I said, based solidly upon the Scriptures. 

The WCF, like most or all Reformation creeds, upholds the truth that creeds are subordinate to the Scriptures. But they summarize very nicely what the Scriptures teach. 

As has been noted, doctrines like the Trinity can be proved from Scripture and are cardinal doctrines, but the Confession articulates the doctrine very succintly and faithfully according to the sense of Scripture. 

Although every Christian should be grounded in the Scriptures above all, for they are the word of life, the Confession and Catechisms teach us what we need to know. They help us to confess and understand what we believe the Bible is saying. 

I have no problem quoting the Confession in a thread on the Puritan Board. The Scripture proof texts are available for all to read. Sometimes I include them and sometimes I don't. 

I liken the Confession to Nehemiah 8.8: So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

I too do not think it necessary for the Church to reinvent the wheel when it comes to summarizing what we believe. On the contrary, I fervently pray that we might return to our Confessional heritage. Let us stand upon the Word of God, as understood and taught by our Confession, and upon the shoulders of those giants who have gone before us in the faith, and may our conversation be thus framed aright. May each generation affirm the orthodoxy of the past (own it as our own) and if possible build on it rather than returning to square one.


----------



## biblelighthouse (May 18, 2005)

Brothers & Sisters, 

First, I need to apologize for my poorly worded poll. I personally took great care in wording it, but I obviously failed. Kevin made a great point in response to one of my statements:



> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am fallible. So if some of you guys thought I was making a "Bible only" versus "WCF only" poll, then I need to recognize that I made a mistake. Please forgive me.

On the flip side, I ask that the rest of you be as gracious as Kevin was. He said that he can live with my explanation. In other words, even if you don't like the way I worded the poll, please try to understand that the "Bible versus WCF" false-dichotomy was NOT my intention.

Second, please let me clarify something else: I never meant to imply that it is wrong for someone to quote the confession on this forum. I never said that. I think it is a great idea to quote the confession in conversations (especially on this board), as a clear and succinct summary of important doctrines. I was only suggesting that the confession should not be used as *proof* during discussions in which a particular point of doctrine is under question. I realize that some of you even disagree with me on this particular point. But please don't make me out to have said more than I did. I never meant to imply that we should totally abandon the WCF in our discussions . . . far from it! I love the WCF. I was only questioning a particular usage of it in certain circumstances. 

In any case, forgive me for being unclear in various ways. Maybe I should have asked Kevin's or Scott's opinion before posting my poll questions. 

Let's stop beating a dead horse . . . 

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 18, 2005)

Joseph,
Well said. Forgive me if I was curt. I have been stressed out lately for various reasons..........

Whatever the case, I believe everything that needed to be said in regards to this thread has been said. Lets move on.........



Thread closed; gone fishin!


----------

